By Matthew Ehret
The following is a response to Courtenay Turner’s essay ‘A Response in the Spirit of Philia’ (subtitled: ‘With Friends Like These Who Needs Sophists’) published on November 30, 2025.
Thank you for sharing your counter-argument to my original Nov. 27 critique of your characterization of the Plato vs Aristotle debate published on November 14, and your addendum of Nov 26.
Unfortunately I must say that ther are lots of fallacies in here Courtenay, and it’s hard to decide where to even start.
Before I go through a few serious doozies that caught my attention, I would simply like to restate my offer of November 16. That is, to have a friendly debate about these important topics since taking turns writing responses has its charm but isn’t ideal for fleshing out some of those divergent topics we are trying to work through.
The clash between the paradigms of Plato vs Aristotle, the debates between the subjective and objective realms (and how they interact), the debate of freedom vs duty, parts and wholes, finite/infinite etc… have been contentious topics throughout the last 2500 years, and it is silly to think that an easy simple resolution via public digital letter writing will be sufficient to do the job today.
But for the time being, until that happy time arrives, here are a few thoughts that I feel obliged to share based on your ‘A Response in the Spirit of Philia’. (captioned ‘With Dialectical Friends Like These Who Needs Sophists?)
What is the basis of Friendship?
First up, I’m a bit surprised that you started your article by alluding that you do not feel like I am a real friend due to the fact that I said that you had jumped into judgements of things you didn’t take the time to properly understand and that you needed to use more humility going forward.
Is that an attack on you as a person?
You say that I was using ad hominems when I simply pointed out that you have not properly studied the source material of those important figures whom you are criticizing and whom you profess to speak about as an authority. I will expand on this further below.
Let me be clear, I don’t think you are a bad person, or bad intentioned in any way.
I am not saying that you ARE the faulty method of analysis you are currently promoting, as I clearly have made the point that I care about you and want you to succeed in life, and do service to humanity, and I meant it as a friend.
But your opinions that you shared in both of your recent essays are replete with so many loud fallacies that it is a bit dizzying, and moreover I detect that these fallacies to being intrinsically tied with the systemic underlying method that you have found yourself using, and which I criticized.
Yet, you have chosen a strange course of action by not having consulted me, your friend before generating your essay The Metaphysical Betrayal: From Cult Leader to Kremlin Tool.
Now you know very well that I deeply respect LaRouche, and I’ve spoken to you about this on a number of your shows over the years and we’ve spoken a lot in private about LaRouche as well, and you’ve never expressed any hostility or concern on any occasion. This is why you can only imagine my surprise when I read that essay which appeared to come out of thin air.
Additionally, you know that I have not only deeply studied LaRouche’s method, his writings, and first hand sources he laid out across his 50 years of writings. I investigated the minds of many of his collaborators, and those minds whom he claimed made vital discoveries to advance human society across three millenia. And you know that since 2006 and I was also a volunteer for his movement which I did full time until 2016, and did a lot of first-hand explorations into him as a person, his members, the movement’s dramas, ugly spots, enemies and more.
You know that I’ve written a book on the Platonic method and LaRouche (Science Unshackled), and you know that I have delivered dozens of lectures and entire courses on the topic across many years.
Yet despite knowing all this, you bypassed any conversations with me, your supposed “friend”, and jumped straight into publishing this really sloppy essay replete with errors and blatant lies.
And then after publishing it, you brushed off my offers to have a friendly debate (I think you said ‘the earliest date you could potentially do this was some time in 2026 since you were so busy with your new book promotion).
On Secret Doctrines
On top of bypassing any conversation with me before or after the publication of the essay, you then wrote a follow-up essay where you literally inferred that I was an occult “Hermetic-Kabbalistic mentalist” even subtly alluding that I (following LaRouche) am pushing a ‘secret gnostic teaching’ for elites only (which you also alluded to in your first hit piece). You literally stated that a “Manichean framework was presented as LaRouche’s central historical discovery and was central to his public teaching, not concealed.”
That’s pretty harsh Courtenay, and not a very friendly thing to do… even by Aristotelian standards.
Now if you always believed that I promoted Hermetic-Kabalistic mentalism knowable only to ‘an inner elite’ throughout the entire time we’ve been friends, then I would have appreciated you telling me this earlier so that we could talk it over to see if this claim were correct or not.
However, it appears that you are only saying this publicly now after I have criticized the claims you made in your original hit piece on LaRouche.
So, is it true? Am I or LaRouche, or Poe or Cusa (all of whom you profess to deeply understand based on the language of authority you feel comfortable to use)… are we gnostic Hermetic Kabbalists because we don’t sever the objective from subjective aspects of creation?
I can honestly say that neither I, nor LaRouche have ever held a ‘secret doctrine’ for elites, and it’s unfortunate that you allude to this. The “method” you refer to is available for everyone who wishes to make discoveries, which excludes no one. It is very much premised on the principle of Free Will however, so if people don’t want to try to practice this method relying instead on something more literalist, and driven by description of some assumed static, unchanging model of reality which they cannot subjectively discover to be ontologically true, then that is their choice of course.
But I think you are doing yourself a disservice by attacking something you haven’t taken the time to try out for yourself.
I think this approach lends itself to bad choices, a tendency of misreading empirical information, and a tendency to not recognize flawed axioms in one’s own thinking which causes self-contractory positions to be maintained without appreciating the healthy cognitive dissonances that typically accompany holding contradictory positions in mind.
There are in fact several self-contradictions over the past couple of weeks in your own thinking which I would like to bring your attention to make my point clear now:
1) You want to have your cake and eat it too
In your first post attacking LaRouche, you stated that anyone pushing the Plato vs Aristotle opposition is just a neo-Platonist fraud. In that post you state: “The purported “rivalry” between the two philosophers [Plato and Aristotle] is largely an invention of subsequent interpreters, such as Neoplatonists, who adapted it to advance their own doctrines.”
BUT then just now in your response to David Gosselin at the bottom of your most recent Substack post (With Dialectical Friends Like These…) you state: “The irreconcilability between Plato and Aristotle isn’t just a historical curiosity—it’s fundamental, and I have zero interest in synthesizing or reconciling them. Attempts to do so, from Neoplatonists to modern interpreters, inevitably distort both.”
So you appear to want to have both contradictory assumptions to be true at the same time, or are you now saying that you are now a Neo-Platonist?
Normally you wouldn’t do this if you were using the Platonic method of examining paradoxes in your own thinking and developing a sensitivity to your opinions and the root axioms they flow out of… but the Aristotelian method allows only absolute language, a static metaphysics of descriptive noun-based thinking, and no self-reflection on fundamental axioms that can assist the thinker in the art of Plato’s higher hypothesizing.
So it’s the very Aristotelian methodology you have come to adore so which is preventing you from being consistent with yourself.
But there are a few more examples.
2) You clearly didn’t take the time to read all of the sources you cite in your texts yet have no problem saying that you have done so.
For example, in your first article supposedly refuting LaRouche’s assertion of the Plato vs Aristotle clash, you assert that LaRouche’s thinking emerges from Emmanuel Kant. To substantiate your point, you include as a source text, LaRouche’s 2005 essay published in EIR title ‘From Kant to Riemann: The Shape of Empty Space’.
You are unfortunately caught here as having only read a title and not the actual essay, if you had, you would have been aware that LaRouche was attacking Kant’s method. In fact, LaRouche has always and quite explicitly attacked Kant’s method since 1975 and was consistent on this until his death.
LaRouche writes critically of Kant in this article you cited:
“Kant’s own essential shortcomings have a very specific basis, his fidelity to the tradition of that Apollo cult of Delphi as reflected in Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound: the prohibition of the kind of creative reason which both the Zeus of Prometheus Bound and the practice of the actual Apollo cult, banned from human social behavior. Within those boundaries, Kant could be clever, and sometimes was. It was those who lacked a sense of actual creativity, who were seduced by Kant, seduced because they found in Kant an apology, that of the constipated intellectual formalist, for the lack of creativity shown by their “hysterically blocked” mental life. It was this syndrome in his mental life, which had qualified Kant as an acceptable paragon of the creatively constipated victims of the “Enlightenment.” Kant was, after all, a German Apollonian Romantic.”
But why read an actual article when you could just read a title and make a conclusion that LaRouche follows Kant?
3) You are clearly not reading the works of Nicholas of Cusa or Johannes Kepler.
Yet despite not reading their actual works, you feel that it is no big deal to tell the world what methods they used despite the actual words they used to describe their own methods.
Nicholas of Cusa (1400-1460), as you state in your Substack response to David Gosselin on November 30, was the man who opened the door to the sleight of hand used by Kant and LaRouche to negate objective reality in favor of subjectivity.
Instead of citing any of their works, which you can’t do because you haven’t studied their works, you instead extensively cite Stanford Encyclopedia to tell you what to think about Kepler or Cusa and their method (which you again assert has nothing to do with your ‘objective’ notion of metaphysics.) … Did I ever mention that Stanford University is the control mechanism for the Cult of Mithra’s Takeover of the United States?
It is also confusing as to why you would choose to cite Stanford of all universities to quote from, knowing what you do of that institution and their role in MK Ultra and CIA remote viewing, trauma based mind control and technocracy more broadly.
Kepler… the Aristotelian?
You ignore Kepler’s own words about the method he uses, and you impose your own point of view extracted from Stanford Encyclopedia. You even feel so confident that you assert Kepler himself had used Aristotle’s method in making his discoveries, which you can know is not true if you read his writings and experience the method of thinking he takes you through featuring all of his mistaken hypotheses, his negative discoveries, his new hypotheses, how he tests then and his eurekas. He takes you through all of it just as Plato takes you through every error, irony and paradox, for a reason in the dialogues.
Once again, citing Stanford Encyclopedia, you characterize Kepler as a follower of Aristotle and a pure mathematical rationalist committed to empiricism.
IF you actually studied the works of Kepler instead of relying on the Stanford Encyclopedia as your authority you would know very well that he was not what you have described. You say that “Kepler’s actual method weds precise measurement of sensible particulars (Tycho’s data) to rational hypothesis and harmonic form (Harmonices Mundi V, Preface; New Astronomy ch. 70)—the very integration of the empirical and the intelligible that LaRouche falsely claims to champion.”
This is simply a fallacious characterization of what Kepler did and how he did it.
Did he use data from Tycho Brahe’s data? Sure. Everyone must use data in science. Did he use logic? No one can do science without that either.
Did he treat all the data as equal?
Not at all.
What data did Kepler find most valuable?
Everything pertaining to the retrograde motion of Mars and the ‘extreme Minima/Maxima positions of the planets.
The reason why he zeroed in on this data which was due to the fact that the IRONIES generated by the retrograde motion of Mars and Jupiter demonstrated the Achilles heels in all dominant standard models of the solar system then hegemonic which all shared in identical false axioms (despite being widely different on a surface level). The Retrograde ironies provided Kepler the gateway to ‘SEE’ the ontological paradox caused by the axiomatic beliefs in:
A) Perfectly circular orbits and
B) Epicylces/Equants shaping the rotation of planets around fictional sub-orbits which he needed to disprove.
I go through this entire discovery in my class ‘Rediscovering the Lost Art of Pythagorean Thinking’
In his later works, Kepler found only those data sets useful which dealt with the MINIMA-MAXIMA principle of each orbit (ie: location of planets at the closest/fastest and furthest/slowest positions from the Sun) because this is what is needed to establish his proof of the musical harmony shaping the solar system.
This Minima/Maxima Principle was first discovered by Nicholas of Cusa by the way, whom Kepler studied, and who consciously derived his insights from Plato and the Platonic method.
It always served as the master key used by the anti-Cartesian Platonist Pierre Fermat who used it to discover the principle of refraction and most explicitly the Least Time Principle that later guided Leibniz in both his practical physical discoveries in the Calculus and also his Metaphysical concepts such as his demonstration of the Best of All Possible Worlds, and his Principle of Sufficient Reason, and Principle of Pre-Established Harmony.
Before Kepler, NO scientific authority alive in his time permitted the sun to be anything more than a mathematical entity without any motive power of causation. This changed with Kepler and his understanding of Ontological paradoxes and organizing his data according to the poetic principle of a matured sense of irony.
If you sincerely want to understand Kepler’s discovery, I highly encourage you to review my lecture ‘Reviving the Lost Art of Pythagorean Thinking or the associated essay. Don’t do a ChatGPT summary which derives popular opinions from Standard Model authorities. Work through this stuff yourself.
I was a bit surprised that you felt comfortable even re-framing Kepler’s own words to back up your subjective case.
Where Kepler said that Aristotle “is not to be tolerated in the Christian religion” (cited verbatim from his Harmonice Mundi that I shared with you)… you then imposed your own intention onto Kepler where you said he had “criticisms of certain Aristotelian doctrines” yet was “deeply rooted in the Aristotelian tradition”.
No. He literally said that “Aristotle is not to be tolerated in the Christian religion”.
I have literally eight pages of other quotes by Kepler calling out the fallacies and false method of Aristotle, so this is not a one-off anomaly and he certainly would not be very happy to see you mis-characterize the method he used (which he saw as inextricably linked to Metaphysics as he outlines in Book Four of the Harmonies of the Universe).
In Cusa’s Defense
Beyond the dozens of quotes of Kepler criticizing Aristotle’s method, I can quote from dozens of essays and books by Cusa which demonstrate not only that he was an anti-gnostic anti-Hermetic genuine Platonist. Yet you seem comfortable to assert that he made systemic errors and opened up the door to the “Hermetic Kaballist” inversion of subjectivity in place of objectivity under the influence of Kant and LaRouche.
Again, none of this is true as Cusa is very clear that all humans, without exception are capable of making discoveries of universals due to the fact that we are all made in the living image of God (Imago Viva Dei) and that this devotion allows us to increase our power to participate in the ongoing flow of creation (Cusa’s concept of De Pace Fidei).
This in no way means that Cusa promotes the lie that the subjective can replace the objective or that ‘only the subjective exists’ as gnostics promote.
It is the recognition that we are not separate from God’s Creation, and the universal divine attributes of the Creator’s essence animates all of creation… including each of us unique human beings.
Thus it shouldn’t be a surprise if the essence of universals, moral and physical, exist within the soul albeit confusedly. If this be true, then the question becomes: How do we relate that infinite, transcendental Being with the finiteness of our being limited in space and time? As we are in a sense infinitesimals of the whole of creation. Again the metaphysical implications of Leibniz’s Infinitesimal Calculus which recognizes the entire curvature expressed in the smallest infinitesimal parts, was not lost on Leibniz, Charles Dupin (the man Poe would base his fictional creation Inspector C. Auguste Dupin on), Bernard Riemann, Max Planck, Edgar Poe or LaRouche (again, just to name a few).
They all recognized that objective Metaphysics and subjective Method cannot be broken apart into two separate universes. They all made discoveries of universal principles. Their positions on Metaphysics was interconnected with their success discovering universal principles as they themselves write in their own books.
Questions that flow out of the coexistence of a Transcendental reality of Perfection (Plato’s Being) and the material reality of Becoming where change, boundedness and imperfection is constant, are very potent but include such things as:
How do we as finite imperfect individuals relate the transcendental realm of Perfection, Divinity, and Being?
How does the Subjective relate with the Objective aspects of the universe? Are there two separate sets of rules of the universe (one for the subjective and one for God) or is there a harmony in one universe?
Is there anything objectively true and universal about our individual souls and if so how do we explore that?
Why is the universe quantized harmonically in the macro and micro domains, and why does the Golden section emerge principally in living matter… but also in the ratios of Planetary orbits as proven by Kepler and hypothesized 2000 years earlier by Plato?
Do Hermeticists and Kaballists attempt to resolve these paradoxes into some kind of “Oneness”? Sure they do.
Does their method suck?
Yes it does.
Why does it suck?
Because it is based on irrationalism and a rejection of self-reflexive examinations of core false axioms and it is based on a destruction of humility.
The resolution of opposites for an Occultist Neo-Platonist is grounded upon altered states, ecstatic trances, and a myriad of other rituals that dislodges the moral subjective from ontological-truth oriented aspects of the personality. They replace the objective with the subjective, and they cannot make discoveries, but they can see them, fear them, plagiarize them and turn them into formalistic shells devoid of substance and transmissable only via rote memorization, habit and blind authority in rules.
This Neo-Platonic movement is in no way connected to the authentic school of Platonists who actually make discoveries of principles whom I have been hammering at.
In the words of Socrates, this Neo-Platonic ‘method’ (expressed by the satirical subtle humor of the Parmenides or The Sophist dialogues), may have many elements of the surface appearance of a Platonic method… but it is a fraudulent perversion of a wind-egg. All shell, no substance.
I thought you understood this when we went through a 3 hour show dissecting legitimate Platonism vs Neo-Platonic counterfeits, but I guess not.
Cusa’s Fight for Universal Rights of Man
Throughout his collected writings, Cusa (who not only revolutionized modern physical science but also statecraft itself establishing the foundations of the modern nation state), is very clear that he is opposed to the gnostic school that presumes a gnosis devoid of rational intelligibility (and also supposes an evil universe).
Instead Cusa teaches that all people can learn to self examine their axioms, “see” paradoxes (ie: identify where their hypotheses of reality break down when pressed upon reality), and upon discovering which root axioms are resulting in the paradox, he teaches (following Plato) that everyone is capable of generating discoveries (ie: resolutions to those paradoxes) resulting in discoveries of universals. Cusa’s writings are devoted to demonstrations of how all people do this as long as they have humility and learn how to self-examine their root axioms.
Cusa’s leading nemeses were both the Aristotelian/Aquinas Scholastics and also the opposing school of Neo-Platonic Hermeticists such as the figure John Wenck with whom he clashed intensively. The most powerful demonstration of Universal Rights and Government founded upon Natural Law also came out of Cusa’s works such as the Concordantia Catholica where he wrote:
“There is in the people a divine seed by virtue of their common equal birth and the equal natural rights of all men, so that all authority – which comes from God as does man himself – is recognized as divine when it arises from the common consent of all the subjects… This is that divinely ordained marital state of spiritual union based on a lasting harmony by which a commonwealth is guided in the fullness of peace toward eternal bliss.”
4) You are grossly mistaken about your characterization of Kepler’s method and his relationship with data.
Once again, I think your reliance on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (as a substitute for studying Kepler’s writings) is not helping you.
For instance, you write: “Kepler attacked Fludd precisely because Fludd treated mathematical harmonies as occult correspondences rather than as immanent ratios discoverable through measurement and hypothesis-testing grounded in sensory data.”
Kepler actually devoted much of Book Four of his Harmonies to an attack on the ratio driven approach of generating musical ratios advanced by the leading authorities of musical theoreticians of his day… Vincenzo Galilee (Galileo’s father) and also Euclid whose theory of harmonic ratios he admonishes in his Epilogue.
So yes, Kepler is attacking Fludd’s obscurantist Hermetic approach to Harmonics, but he is simultaneously destroying the controlled opposition of the schools of the other extreme mathematical and sensory fetishists such as Vincenzo and Euclid.
Euclid’s abstract model of harmony relies upon arbitrary strings that he positions together at different lengths to generate ‘harmonies’ which merely fool the ear but fail to satisfy reason (ie: No reason WHY the lengths selected by Euclid are the lengths they are rather than some other imaginable array of lengths)… Meanwhile Vincenzo Galilee’s scheme became the standard model of musical theory in Kepler’s life time, despite it being a total fraud (unlike Euclid, Galilee starts with a single whole chord which he proceeds to divide into ‘parts’… however his “principle” is purely mathematical and sensory… and wrong.
By taking the ratio of 18/19 and sub-dividing the chord several times, Vincenzo arrives at the conclusion that the proportions created mimic the octave (do re mi fa sol la si do)… but as Kepler demonstrates this is also foolishly wrong and ultimately arbitrary.
I taught RTF courses on Kepler’s actual discoveries (a recent eight part series is available online here). Though this has been obscured for centuries, Kepler literally created a new and perfected theory of musical harmony using the hypotheses laid out by Plato in his Timaeus dialogue.
To get to his discovery of the geometric causes of the hard and soft scales (and their appearance in shaping the tempering of the planets in the solar system which resulted in his 3rd Law of Planetary Motion), Kepler literally asked: What is the musicality of the universe and WHY are the planets arranged in the orbits they are, rather than in some other imaginable arrangement?
He posed this question at the age of 23 and it is found in his first book ‘Mysterium Cosmographicum’ where he also loudly proclaims his devotion to the method of Nicholas of Cusa and Plato. His exploration begins with the nesting of the five Platonic Solids, and continues across the next 25 years right up to his magnum opus proving planetary harmony (which by the way he had to regenerate from his highly educated, trained imagination) in 1618.
It is of additional value to hold the fact in mind that Kepler’s motive of making the discovery of the musicality of God and creation was tied to his immense efforts to stop the Thirty Years War from being launched. That Alchemical Working was itself a Rosicrucian project for purgative bloodshed which Robert Fludd was a direct leading participant and which Kepler understood. That’s a story for another day.
5) You state you have no rival method to present in opposition to “the method” proposed by myself, or Plato, or Leibniz, or Poe or LaRouche since you assert a belief that metaphysics has nothing to do with a method of thinking.
Your idea of metaphysics seems to be extremely descriptive and supposes a universe that involves moral and physical transcendent principles shaping physical reality. If that is an incorrect description of your basic concept of metaphysics, then let me know. If you would like to clarify anything about that, please do.
But from what I understand that is what you believe, and honestly, it isn’t that different in outward form from what I also believe is shaping the universe.
However, you appear to be happy calling this metaphysical model ‘Objective Truth’ and rooted in common sense realism of Aristotle… Yet, if I ask HOW did that idea arise? (i.e.: How did you or ANYONE discover that to be true), then what would you say?
Would you tell me what method was used or if there was no method used then how could you say it is a discovery with any claim to truth?
Now I would restate the offer I delivered to you on November 16 which is to have a friendly public discussion relating to our differences on method, LaRouche, Kepler, Leibniz, Cusa, Plato vs Aristotle etc.
I think that would be appropriate and overdue at this point. I know you say that you are super busy promoting your new book but honestly, I think this is pretty important and merits the time.
Some final thoughts
On My Use of Syllogism
You accuse me of using Syllogistic arguments to bash Aristotle.
All logic involves the use of some form of syllogism (generalizations and specificities require that in any communication). My issue is not with the form itself but with the rules of having syllogisms rooted in unexaminable crystalized closed Axioms and definitions that are beyond reproach even if demonstrably wrong through the application of ontological paradoxes. This kills creativity, the potential for making actual discoveries, and humility. It blinds the mind’s eye to phenomena that are right in front of it should the axioms deny said phenoma’s existence.
On Mechanics vs Universal Principles
You use the figure of the 3rd century physician Galen to try to prove me wrong when I said to show me an Aristotelian who made a discovery of universal principles using Aristotle’s method. From what little I read of his fragments I like Galen (who also appears to be a lover of Plato), and who used sense perception (as all scientists must) as well as logic (as all scientists must).
How that proves that the Aristotelian method caused his discovery is a bit loose, but at the same measure, I qualified my words carefully to say ‘discovery of universal principles’ because I am aware that there are useful advances that can be made using the Baconian or Aristotelian systems on a mechanistic level. Galen’s work on the mechanical flow of blood through our veins, compelled by the heart is super, but not a discovery of universal principle.
On My Rejection of Aristotle’s Principle of Non-Contradiction
You say that that “More damningly, your minor premise is false: Aristotle’s axioms (e.g., the principle of non-contradiction) are not “unexamined” but demonstrated in Metaphysics; his universals are not derived inductively from sense data alone but abstracted by nous from phantasmata. The irony is exquisite: the attack on Aristotle’s method is carried out by means of the method you claim is sterile.”
First up, following Edgar Poe in his Eureka: A Prose Poem, the Principle that something cannot be both A and Not A simultaneously is indeed Aristotle’s… but it is also absolutely sterile and wrong.
In fact, all ponderable entities including a human body, can be conceptualized SIMULTANEOUSLY as Unities, but also as Parts and can conceptually be sub-divided infinitely.
THUS from that standpoint, is a tree one thing, or many things, or infinite?
Is a poem one thing, or many words or many letters or infinite sounds?
In some ways, some things can be both A (finite) and NOT A (infinite) simultaneously.
Poe’s and Cusa’s demonstration of this is pretty enjoyable, and I can send you some fun reading material on that front if it interests you.
On my ‘Broadside’ critique of Peter Duke
You write that my critique of your anti-LaRouche (and anti-Plato) essay is “all the more disappointing given that earlier you launched a similar broadside against our mutual friend The Duke Report™️ Peter Duke”.
First off, a ‘broadside’ implies some form of dirty attack. My epistemological position is very clear and Peter’s (and your) decision to promote flawed modalities of thinking on public platforms, I think welcomes critiques of your positions, including from friends.
Why Peter or yourself would choose to interpret this as some personal “broadside” or ad hominem attack is perplexing. It was quite clear that I was not attacking Peter as a person, nor you as a person but merely the method you are using, bad habits that I detect in your thinking and which you are promoting which I see as misguided and wrong.
Even now, in his recent counter-critique to me titled ‘With Friends Like These Who Needs Enemas (which allows no comments for non-paying subscribers btw), Peter doubled down on his position that he need not read original writings of ‘dead white males’ who made discoveries of principle choosing instead his Chat GPT summary models to interpret what great thinkers have done INSTEAD of reading their source writings to re-experience their discoveries for himself. He doubles down on his position that he need not waste his time with the content of what people (including myself) actually are saying when his superior model simply looks for deep grammar structures and NLP guided mechanics underlying language models.
It appears like he’s even generating content using AI at this point to reframe entire books, ideas, areas of study, general philosophy and first principles through an easier to consume presentation made possible by AI.
At this point, doing this is his choice as we all have free will, but that doesn’t change my position that it is misguided and very destructive to both his own mind and anyone whom he influences.
On America’s Founding and the Scottish School of Aristotelean Realists
I’m about ¼ into the book edited by Daniel N. Robinson American Founding: It’s Intellectual and Moral Framework, which you advised I read and which you say educated you about the importance of the Aristotelian ‘Scottish School of Common Sense Realism’.
I will comment on this book in due time, but until then I must say the picture painted of the dynamics shaping the young republic after 40 pages of two essays ignores a lot of very serious reality that is otherwise very discoverable about the actual agencies, occult forces, Jesuit operations and other financial and psychological warfare at play during those early days.
I am a bit allergic to this dry scholastic style of contemplative theorizing devoid of any appreciation for the oligarchy’s existence or the oligarchy’s modus operandi in cultural and epistemic warfare.
Not sure if this reality is ignored because Robinson is himself an influential force in the Jesuit-controlled Georgetown University which is a leading indoctrination center shaping the psychology and game plan of the US deep state or if it’s because of his role as professor of philosophy at Oxford University which has been devoted to destroying the USA since before the revolution.
Or maybe it has something to do with Robinson’s co-author/editor of the book Richard N. Williams who is a professor at the Mormon Bringham Young University which has served as a gnostic operation inside the USA shaping most high brass of the CIA for nearly two centuries. I will plough on to the end of this book, but these are not good signs that you’re getting a competent telling of America’s story.
There are much better accounts of the original ideas shaping the USA’s origins than what I’m seeing in this book thus far. I’d suggest taking the time to review Graham Lowry’s How the Nation Was Won: America’s Untold Story 1630-1754 for starters, and Phil Valenti’s Leibniz, Not Locke, Inspired the Declaration of Independence, The Anti-Newtonian Roots of the American Revolution by Valenti, Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress by Chaitkin, The Political Economy of the American System edited by Nancy Spannaus or Colbert, Leibniz and Vattel: The Cameralist Roots of the American System by Sam Labrier.
I hope you don’t consider my message to you to be devoid of love or care for you, but no matter what I will always care for the truth more than everything. I know you love the truth as well, and hopefully I am beginning to make some useful points why method does matter when it comes to metaphysics.
For more information about Plato’s Method, Physics and Metaphysics
Additional videos which Cynthia and I have done featuring different aspects of Plato’s method and his role as a person shaping global geopolitical systems can be found here:
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mRVlB7vHAA0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-cjxJec5VH8?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/CoJXzi0lYJY?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/u5xNxpoozQk?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vX4J8Amxpf0?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0