10-10-2022, 06:32 PM
A lot of people are misled when it comes to intellectual virtue. Many think that they can just state their feelings, and this holds intellectual value. Others believe that "insights" -- quick, cheap sayings that activate the novelty dopamine receptors -- are of utmost importance. Still more believe that they secretly know everything, at least as regards some topic for which there is not yet a science (e.g., how power works), and that the only thing they need to do to contribute intellectually is sort it out with English words. These groups -- mental women, insight consoomers, and armchair philosophers -- are not mutually exclusive with one another.
Each, however, is mutually exclusive with the set of people that understand and practice intellectual virtue. Virtuists must reject feelz over realz, insight porn, and epistemic narcissism because intellectual virtue is the antithesis of those three vices. In other words, intellectual virtue means putting reality first, accepting that knowledge is hard and often only understandable by an elect few, and accepting that we are born in ignorance and will remain in ignorance unless we devote ourselves to knowledge (and even then we are still largely ignorant).
Darwin is an example of a man of great intellectual virtue. The insight consoomers of his day were busy mentally gooning it to Lamarckian insights. Darwin got his ass on a nasty 19th century boat and went around the world, meticulously collecting BORING data, willing to live in deplorable conditions for the chance to do so, and afterwards writing a book that is a lot less "insightful" than a NYT bestseller, a lot heavier and much harder to understand. After collecting his difficult data, Darwin cast aside feelz and created the theory of natural selection. Many feelzists were butthurt. A lot still are to this day. Darwin didn't care, because he put reality over feelings. Darwin's achievement was also only possible from a position of intellectual humility. For centuries, people thought that Aristotle and the Bible was the answer to all science. I am sure the Hegelians and other philo sophists of Darwin's day had deductive theories of biology. Many insight consoomers thought their insights were key, nothing more to see -- the vices are not mutually exclusive. Darwin, on the other hand, knew his people's ignorance. And he knew he could not deduce evolution from first principles in an arm chair. He got his ass out on the boat and collected data, in his intellectual humility.
Curtis Yarvin is an example of a man of poor intellectual virtue. He is an insight merchant, and insight consoomers are often found gooning over hot new Yarvin "insights". In other words, Yarvin thinks knowledge can be quick and easy, and does not use data or mathematics, which are hard and boring. Instead, Yarvin thinks he already knows everything about power and society, and just has to write it down. His source of knowledge is Personal Experience and recycled "insights." He is an epistemic narcissist. He also promotes feelz over realz philo sophistry more generally, frequently talking about how he's just a stage magician activist anyway and how history is just a feelz based narrative, there is no truth, etc. He embraces pomo shit because it appeals to the other vices, the insight sloth and epistemic narcissism.
Many are deceived and don't know intellectual virtue. They come to believe, through their own moral faults and their own naivity and stupidity, that vice is virtue and virtue is vice. They become insight consoomers. They aren't mathematically literate, no, because that would be BORING -- but they know the deductive pseudosophistries of Heidegger or some other intellectual gooner. They don't see what Yarvin could have been, for instance -- imagine an profound science in place of NRx -- imagine really knowing who rules us. Imagine names and addresses. Imagine quantifying Jooish influence objectively. Imagine hardcore, algorithmic, mathematical models only 130+ IQ people understand. Imagine scientific history. A scientific history of Civil Rights. Of abolition. Of democracy. Of Christianity. Instead, you got half assed "insight", like "middle class profs and journos rule you, goyim", and "Progressivism is Christianity, goyim". Lol! Lmao! Because of his vice, his work has no intellectual value. He got it all wrong, offered no proofs (conjectures are of limited worth, and his are wrong anyway -- imagine winning a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis or a Fields Medal for a random conjecture). He will probably die before Zoomers are his age and he will be forgotten and replaced by virtue. The wages of sin is death.
Each, however, is mutually exclusive with the set of people that understand and practice intellectual virtue. Virtuists must reject feelz over realz, insight porn, and epistemic narcissism because intellectual virtue is the antithesis of those three vices. In other words, intellectual virtue means putting reality first, accepting that knowledge is hard and often only understandable by an elect few, and accepting that we are born in ignorance and will remain in ignorance unless we devote ourselves to knowledge (and even then we are still largely ignorant).
Darwin is an example of a man of great intellectual virtue. The insight consoomers of his day were busy mentally gooning it to Lamarckian insights. Darwin got his ass on a nasty 19th century boat and went around the world, meticulously collecting BORING data, willing to live in deplorable conditions for the chance to do so, and afterwards writing a book that is a lot less "insightful" than a NYT bestseller, a lot heavier and much harder to understand. After collecting his difficult data, Darwin cast aside feelz and created the theory of natural selection. Many feelzists were butthurt. A lot still are to this day. Darwin didn't care, because he put reality over feelings. Darwin's achievement was also only possible from a position of intellectual humility. For centuries, people thought that Aristotle and the Bible was the answer to all science. I am sure the Hegelians and other philo sophists of Darwin's day had deductive theories of biology. Many insight consoomers thought their insights were key, nothing more to see -- the vices are not mutually exclusive. Darwin, on the other hand, knew his people's ignorance. And he knew he could not deduce evolution from first principles in an arm chair. He got his ass out on the boat and collected data, in his intellectual humility.
Curtis Yarvin is an example of a man of poor intellectual virtue. He is an insight merchant, and insight consoomers are often found gooning over hot new Yarvin "insights". In other words, Yarvin thinks knowledge can be quick and easy, and does not use data or mathematics, which are hard and boring. Instead, Yarvin thinks he already knows everything about power and society, and just has to write it down. His source of knowledge is Personal Experience and recycled "insights." He is an epistemic narcissist. He also promotes feelz over realz philo sophistry more generally, frequently talking about how he's just a stage magician activist anyway and how history is just a feelz based narrative, there is no truth, etc. He embraces pomo shit because it appeals to the other vices, the insight sloth and epistemic narcissism.
Many are deceived and don't know intellectual virtue. They come to believe, through their own moral faults and their own naivity and stupidity, that vice is virtue and virtue is vice. They become insight consoomers. They aren't mathematically literate, no, because that would be BORING -- but they know the deductive pseudosophistries of Heidegger or some other intellectual gooner. They don't see what Yarvin could have been, for instance -- imagine an profound science in place of NRx -- imagine really knowing who rules us. Imagine names and addresses. Imagine quantifying Jooish influence objectively. Imagine hardcore, algorithmic, mathematical models only 130+ IQ people understand. Imagine scientific history. A scientific history of Civil Rights. Of abolition. Of democracy. Of Christianity. Instead, you got half assed "insight", like "middle class profs and journos rule you, goyim", and "Progressivism is Christianity, goyim". Lol! Lmao! Because of his vice, his work has no intellectual value. He got it all wrong, offered no proofs (conjectures are of limited worth, and his are wrong anyway -- imagine winning a Nobel Prize for a hypothesis or a Fields Medal for a random conjecture). He will probably die before Zoomers are his age and he will be forgotten and replaced by virtue. The wages of sin is death.