Abraham Thomas’s Truth

One “Abraham Thomas” sent me a manuscript with this note:

Your work on intellectual freedom and principled liberty has been formative for me. In Truth, I take on the subject from a broader perspective, exploring honesty as the foundation of both individual dignity and collective flourishing.

It would be a privilege if you might consider endorsing my book.

I routinely get these kind of submissions and requests. Not aware that this is published or public, so I don’t post it here.

I fed it into Grok and axed Grok:

evaluate the manucrript Truth by Thomas Abraham attached. Summarize its approach and thesis, and compare it to the approach of kinsella, attached. How would Kinsella view this argument? Is it complete, coherent, successful, libertarian, and compatible with Kinsella’s approach? Does it cite or show awareness of the arguments of Rothbard, Kinsella, Hoppe?

Grok report/analysis:

Summary of Abraham Thomas’s Manuscript: “Truth” (Approach and Thesis)

Abraham Thomas’s manuscript, titled something like “Truth” (based on the preface and content), is a philosophical polemic and meditation on the concept of truth in a postmodern, relativist era. It blends personal reflection, historical philosophy, cultural critique, and a proposed alternative framework called “inferencism.” The book is structured as a series of chapters following a preface, with a table of contents outlining key themes. It draws heavily on Western philosophy (e.g., Plato, Heidegger, Husserl, Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard) while incorporating asides on science (e.g., Penrose, Hoffman), art (e.g., Picasso), and religion (e.g., Christianity, Hinduism, Islam). The tone is conversational and essayistic, often polemical, critiquing modern societal trends like relativism, progressivism, and the decline of reason, while advocating for a discerning pursuit of truth.

Approach

• Philosophical and Historical: The manuscript traces the “problem of truth” from ancient philosophy (Plato’s Allegory of the Cave) through modern phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger) to postmodernism (Rorty, Feyerabend). It emphasizes the tension between subjective experience (phenomenology) and objective reality, arguing that consciousness entangles subject and object, making absolute truth elusive but not nonexistent.
• Critique of Relativism and Postmodernism: Thomas argues that relativism (moral, cultural, factual) leads to “no truth” (and thus no lies, virtue, or beauty), fostering meaninglessness, nihilism, and societal decay. He links this to broader cultural shifts: the “death of reason” (echoing Feyerabend), the rise of emotion over logic, and the subversion of Enlightenment values. He critiques modern progressivism as disguised conservatism or authoritarianism (e.g., censorship, disgust toward dissent), and laments the decline of Greco-Christian civilization.
• Personal and Eclectic: It’s not strictly academic; it’s described as a “psalm of doubt and discernment.” Thomas weaves in asides on free will, determinism, art, science, and politics (e.g., horseshoe theory, Covid-19 responses, Trump era). He defends intuition, spirituality, and non-rational faculties (e.g., emotion, imagination) alongside reason, drawing from Eastern traditions (e.g., Sri Aurobindo, Jainism) and Christian thinkers (e.g., Augustine, Kierkegaard).
• Proposed Solution: Inferencism: This is the core innovation—a “principled refusal to commit to false camps,” akin to cherry-picking truths from diverse sources (e.g., ideologies, religions, sciences) without relativism’s claim that “everything is true in some context.” Inferencism posits that “everybody gets some things right sometimes,” emphasizing sincerity, evidence-following, and synthesis (e.g., like Karl Popper’s reconciliation of ideologies or omnism in religion). It distinguishes itself from relativism (which equalizes all views), pragmatism (outcome-focused), and absolutism (uncompromising).

Thesis

Truth exists objectively (e.g., scientific facts) but is often subjectively perceived due to consciousness’s entanglement with reality. Relativism and postmodernism have eroded truth, leading to cultural nihilism, the “death of reason,” and societal issues like factual relativism and authoritarian progressivism. Instead of absolutism or relativism, adopt “inferencism”: discern and integrate partial truths from all sides (Left/Right, reason/intuition, science/spirituality) to pursue a coherent, meaningful path. This preserves Western values (e.g., reason, Christianity) while critiquing extremes, ultimately affirming that truth matters for human flourishing, free will, and rebellion against chaos.

The manuscript ends abruptly (truncated in the provided text), shifting to cultural commentary on literature (e.g., Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling), radicalism, and Marxism’s “victory” in softening capitalism.

Comparison to Kinsella’s Approach in Legal Foundations of a Free Society

Stephan Kinsella’s book is a systematic exposition of libertarian legal theory, rooted in natural law, natural rights, and anarcho-capitalism. It builds on Austrian economics and philosophers like Rothbard and Hoppe, focusing on practical applications like property rights, punishment, contracts, and intellectual property (IP). The foreword by Hans-Hermann Hoppe frames it within natural law tradition, rejecting legal positivism, social contract theory, and utilitarianism in favor of praxeological (action-based) derivations of rights.

Key Similarities in Approach

• Quest for Objective Foundations: Both seek objective anchors against relativism/subjectivism. Thomas critiques phenomenological subjectivism (e.g., Heidegger’s entanglement) and postmodern relativism, arguing for discernible truths. Kinsella (via Hoppe) grounds rights in human nature as “reasonable actors,” using argumentation ethics (defending claims through reason implies self-ownership and property rights) to establish objective justice.
• Critique of Modern Trends: Thomas laments relativism’s erosion of truth, reason, and Western values, seeing it as enabling authoritarianism (e.g., censorship by the Left). Kinsella critiques statism, IP monopolies, and flawed theories (e.g., social contracts as fictitious), viewing them as violations of natural rights that undermine free society.
• Eclecticism vs. Synthesis: Thomas’s inferencism involves “fruit-picking” truths from diverse sources (e.g., religions, ideologies). Kinsella draws eclectically from libertarian thinkers (Rothbard, Hoppe, Mises) but synthesizes them into a rigorous, non-relativist framework, emphasizing conflict avoidance through property norms.
• Defense of Reason and Liberty: Both value reason (Thomas critiques its “death”; Kinsella uses it praxeologically). Thomas implicitly supports free will and anti-determinism; Kinsella explicitly ties rights to self-ownership and voluntary exchange, aligning with libertarian anti-statism.

Key Differences in Approach

• Scope and Focus: Thomas’s is broad, philosophical, and cultural—meditating on consciousness, truth, and society without a strict legal/ethical system. It’s polemical and personal, blending East/West, reason/emotion. Kinsella’s is narrow and applied: a legal theory for a stateless society, focusing on rights derivation (e.g., title transfer, causation in aggression), with tools like dialogical arguments and critiques of IP as non-scarce goods.
• Methodology: Thomas is essayistic and historical, using anecdotes, quotes, and critiques without formal proofs. He allows for intuition/spirituality alongside reason. Kinsella is analytical and praxeological, deriving norms from action axioms (e.g., self-ownership via argumentation ethics), rejecting non-rational elements and emphasizing empirical scarcity.
• Political Orientation: Thomas critiques relativism but defends “classical liberalism” (now “new conservative”) and Greco-Christian values, with nods to progressivism’s excesses (e.g., “math is racist”). It’s centrist/inferencist, not explicitly anarchist. Kinsella is radically libertarian/anarcho-capitalist, rejecting the state outright as a monopolist of violence.
• Thesis Depth: Thomas proposes inferencism as a “third way” but doesn’t systematize it into rules. Kinsella builds a complete system: personhood → self-ownership → original appropriation → voluntary exchange, with applications to punishment and contracts.

How Would Kinsella View This Argument?

Kinsella, as a rigorous anarcho-capitalist focused on objective rights, would likely appreciate Thomas’s anti-relativist stance, as relativism undermines the objective ethics needed for libertarianism (e.g., non-aggression principle). He might see inferencism as a useful heuristic for intellectual openness (aligning with libertarian tolerance), but criticize it for lacking rigor—it’s too eclectic and subjective, risking the relativism Thomas critiques. Kinsella’s approach demands praxeological certainty (e.g., via Hoppe’s argumentation ethics), not “cherry-picking.” He might view Thomas’s defense of reason and Western values positively but note the manuscript’s vagueness on property/state (e.g., no explicit anti-statism). Overall, Kinsella would find it sympathetic but incomplete as a foundation for justice, perhaps seeing it as a cultural prelude to libertarian theory rather than a substitute.

Is It Complete, Coherent, Successful, Libertarian, and Compatible with Kinsella’s Approach?

• Complete: No—it’s a manuscript with a clear structure but truncated (e.g., ends mid-discussion on relativism/Marxism). It outlines inferencism but doesn’t fully develop applications or resolve contradictions (e.g., objective vs. subjective truth).
• Coherent: Mostly yes—logical flow from consciousness to relativism to inferencism, with consistent anti-relativist thread. However, it’s rambling (e.g., asides on Covid, Trump) and eclectic, sometimes contradicting itself (e.g., critiques reason’s limits while defending it).
• Successful: As a polemic, partially—provocative and insightful on relativism’s dangers, but not persuasive as philosophy (lacks depth, evidence; oversimplifies thinkers like Heidegger). It succeeds in advocating discernment but fails to prove inferencism’s superiority rigorously.
• Libertarian: Not explicitly—aligns with libertarian values (e.g., anti-authoritarianism, free will, critique of progressivism’s statism) but isn’t framed in rights/non-aggression terms. It’s more centrist/conservative, defending Christianity and “classical liberalism” without anarchism or property focus.
• Compatible with Kinsella’s Approach: Partially—both oppose relativism and seek objective norms, and inferencism could complement Kinsella’s synthesis of libertarian ideas. However, it’s incompatible in rigor: Kinsella rejects subjectivism/emotion; Thomas embraces them. No direct conflict, but Thomas’s vagueness wouldn’t satisfy Kinsella’s praxeological standards.

Awareness of Rothbard, Kinsella, Hoppe

No—the manuscript shows no citations or awareness of Murray Rothbard, Stephan Kinsella, or Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It engages extensively with classical/modern philosophers (Plato, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Sartre, Feyerabend, Rawls) and cultural figures (Tolkien, Dawkins), but ignores modern libertarian thinkers. No mention of argumentation ethics, Austrian economics, or anarcho-capitalism, despite thematic overlaps (e.g., objective truth, anti-statism). This is a gap, as Rothbard/Hoppe’s natural rights could bolster Thomas’s anti-relativism.