Avi Aharon

I’m using the decline of gloabal warming theories to kick-start the translation of my Metaphysics of Purpose into English. I know that it is “unobjectivist” to hold this metaphysics for four years. I have a bunch of excuses to share (I had four years to develop them

I’m starting in the middle. That’s foundational apporach to philosophy for you. I’ll fill in the gaps later on.

The theorem of collectivist science (link to my hebrew blog) says:

A science that calls for a collectivist conclutions is wrong.

As you can see on the image, Metaphysics of Purpose starts with axioms (to be discussed later on, here’s something to taste), from which I prove:

The theorem of foundation

Man has the capability to know all there is to know, to set his purpose in life and to achieve it, all by himself. Epistemology starts here and is not axiomatic but based on solid ground.
(this part is not proved, of course, in this post.)

The theorem of philosophy

All philosophical questions are of the form of “what so I want” and ‘how do I achieve it”. They are not in the form of “I don’t know what I want” or “I have no idea of how to get what I want”.

Next, A “no can do” approach is always wrong.

Scientific theories like “we need to revert to the middle ages in order to stop glabal warming”, or “we can win terror” are always wrong. We identify they’re by phrases like “we need to revert to the middle ages” as accurately as we prove they’re wrong by revieling the fact the they deliver fault temperature measurements. 

A ‘no can do’ argument contradicts the theorem that says that reality is ours to conquer. In addition to state something that is wrong (that reality is not for man to conquer), this argument insults man, as it takes the form of “in order to handle reality, you have to sacrifice”. In the case of the collectivist political science of ‘we can’t win terror” what needs to be sacrificed is your life. Ask the kids who live in Shderot; ask the US soldiers in Iraq.

The call for a collectivist action (”let’s pay more taxes” in the science of “we can’t eliminate misery”) is – in itself – a mark for a wrong science. We knew the global warming is wrong way before we discovered that fraudulent scientists cooked the numbers.

I planned to explain why this post is written differently than the hebrew source. Let’s just say the older post was a draft. Philosophy doesn’t change, but my ability to capture it clearly does

More to come.