It seems, on the basis of this account (criticalthinking.org/pages/critical-thi…), that the initial focus of “critical thinking” in education is to distinguish between different elements of an argument: premise, evidence, subjective preference, conclusion etc. This nevertheless already involves controversial definitions, such as “reasons” seem to be assigned some special significance that can be distinguished from subjective preferences, without explaining why subjective preferences ought not be regarded on par with reasons. Where do reasons come from, if not from subjective preferences, remains unclear. The criteria and standards of evaluation are also not objective, but are rather imposed by the text itself. The student must determine what criteria are expected and what standard to be applied to accomplish “correct” evaluation. This is normative relativism: you shall think how we say you ought to think, not try to make sense according to the laws of sense, because this would empower you to dispute the logical validity of our criteria and standards (including those of the legal/authority system). You shall not believe in the existence of universal laws of logic, or some universal standard of sense, or we will fail you. Here is the clincher: “Communication, in short, is always a transaction between at least two logics. In reading, as I have said, there is the logic of the thinking of the author and the logic of the thinking of the reader. The critical reader reconstructs (and so translates) the logic of the writer into the logic of the reader's thinking and experience.” The silence on the question of the standard, unifying logic according to which the two could understand one another is no doubt intentional, as it would make the contradiction explicit. In short, critical thinking (on this account) is provable nonsense, full of unsupported and false assertions that the student is required to uncritically accept. This is more sinister than I thought, real brainwashing. It now makes more sense why the education system refuses to teach the fundamental laws of logic.

Intentional actions are morally right or wrong irrespective of the causes or circumstances that persuaded us to do them. This is why history does not matter to moral discernment.

“Critical thinking” educates the cannon-fodder how to write useful reports and follow machinery instructions, without endowing the thinking skills that could challenge the logic of systemic authority.

There is an inconsistency between the concepts of ‘greater good’ and ‘common good’, and the common good prevails on logical merits. The qualifier ‘common’ is nevertheless superfluous; the sense of “good” as a principle already entails that it is good for all.

Internal consistency does not guarantee logical validity; the premises must be logical too in order to have a logically valid conclusion. Any assertion of fact or any conviction assumed without a sufficient reason (something ‘unsound’) violates the law of non contradiction.
Moreover, it is impossible to prove the validity or even the likelihood of validity of the conviction that an assertion is “garbage”, false or wrong, without demonstrating how it violates the laws of logic, and this is precisely the standard that “critical thinking” does not care to satisfy (which makes it as dogmatic and wrong as any internally consistent cult). If you cannot demonstrate a violation of the laws but form the conviction that an argument or claim is false, it is you (a critical thinker) who violates that laws of logic and draws absurd/false conclusions.

There is a simple economic reason why people do not see it viable to rent out their investment properties on permanent basis. The cost of renovations, the associated red tape, cost of permits, is too high for the rents, risks and security deposits associated with letting strangers into your house, and possibly be unable to evict them. The costs of property maintenance, compliance and construction costs were all inflated in line with the property bubble, created intentionally by the low cost of credit (near zero interest rates) and by favourable tax treatment (which incentivised property investment, causing redistribution of funds towards real estate). Politicians are happy to sit on their empty investment properties simply as a passive asset.

It can be show a priori that all conscious agents value their conscious agency above any other contingent values; to value agency is intrinsic to being an agent.

One possible experiment that could demonstrate that immoral actions diminish our conscious agency and are therefore contrary to self-interest is to ask a sample of persons considered reliably moral to start behaving immorally just for the sake of the experiment, and another sample of persons considered reliably immoral (tyrants, dictators, gangsters, recidivist abusers) to stop being immoral for the sake of the experiment. If one group has a lower capacity to choose otherwise implies that they are more deterministic, therefore possessing a lower degree of agency.

Alternatively, one may simply act immorally, “Do what thou wilt, that is the whole of the law", and see what happens. If you are right, there is no downside. If you are wrong, there is a downside.

Found in the wild

Jospeh Campbell and friends, the authors of this excellent book (excellent for reasons other than the central argument), thought that wise men can change humanity by changing the symbols that guide the masses. I consider this premise easily disproven: the cultural, unconscious forces that drive societies can be expressed under any symbol. Give a murderer the power of the Cross and he will use the cross to exterminate the unbelievers, doubters and dissenters of the dogma; give a terrorist the powerful slogans of anti-fascism, and he will terrorise you like a true fascist, under the guise of being a victim of fascism. Symbols mean nothing if they violate the rules of meaning, which are the ultimate law.

That civilians are intentionally killed for the alleged reason of destroying a “legitimate military target” does not negate the fact that civilians are intentionally killed for that reason, which implies that the “legitimate military target” is used as a reason for intentionally targeting civilians. Any instrumental explanation for the intentional killing of civilians is self-incriminating: an admission of guilt.

The claim that immigration drives up property prices “because more people competing for the same number of houses causes prices to rise” is based on a false premise; the supply of housing is not fixed. When the stock of houses available for sale exceeds the demand, new houses are built, which attracts investment because it is good business to build houses when there is demand. The primary factor in the price level of housing is the supply of money, which is created by commercial banks in the form of credit, mostly via mortgages, hence the lending policies for housing and the associated interest rates determine house prices. In addition, the cost of compliance adds to the cost of housing and can delay adjustments to their supply, which is also a matter of policy.

The hardcover version of my book via Ingram is out in the US and the UK. Some stores picked it up for their online catalogue but it appears they set prices as they see fit. I ordered 5 copies for sale if anyone wants it signed, but it will take 1-2 weeks before I will receive them. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1763717224/

Technically, a ‘conspiracy theory’ does not violate the laws of sense, it is just another theory, does not claim to be fact but a possible fact, whereas a flat denial of a conspiracy theory, without a valid argument, does violate the laws of sense.

I came across this person Cynthia Chung, who seems to have significant social media following. In this article she takes on what is known as the Nothfield experiments, mostly Bions work, so I engaged with her. What do you think? https://open.substack.com/pub/cynthiachung/p/a-republic-if-we-can-phoenix-it-bret?r=ufez2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=72315573

Aristocracy does not need a leader because it is not reflexively conscious. Deterministic forces of nature have no autonomous will, therefore the notion of leadership as a means of mediating their subjective preferences does not apply. For the same reason, aristocracy does not care for truth or consistency; it dies unknowingly, it passes like the weather.

Remember that everything ‘in the news’ is a story, and when it is promulgated, then it is meant to affect you. Be careful how you react, because there are people and systems out there who can predict your reactions reasonably well. Stories that are ‘leaks’, awkward admissions, slips of the tongue, incriminating selfies, are the most persuasive, because they look like mistakes, oversights, but they are not. They want to be seen precisely as you see them.

Every ethnic/cultural population can be radicalised to commit crimes against humanity, to commit mass murder, engage in sadistic terror and torture on daily basis, do so openly, gloatingly, proudly, and believe that they are morally justified in doing so. Based on recent history, only about 20% of the population have the capacity to resist such conditioning, to question it, and an unknown small percentage is perhaps immune to it.

If you wish to buy an autographed Hardcover edition of my new book “Moral Ontology: a thesis on the interdependence of sense, integrity and agency”, follow this link (this offer is available to buyers in Australia only): https://buy.stripe.com/00geX1dB7fB6bvO9AD ($50 AUD including regular domestic delivery).