Philosophy Now Forum

Views to the above argument by John Searle?

Note Searle's argument re Constitution of the Respective Institution is similar to my Framework and System of Knowledge.

cont ...page 56-58 56 JOHN R. SEARLE Once we recognize the existence of and begin to grasp the nature of such institutional facts, it is but a short step to see that many forms of obligations, commitments, rights, and responsibilities are similarly institutionalized. It is often a matter of fact tha...

cont.. page 54-55 54 JOHN R. SEARLE Put yet another way, any effort to derive an "ought" from an "is" must be a waste of time, for all it could show even if it succeeded would be that the "is" was not a real "is" but only a disguised "ought" or, alternatively, that the "ought" was not a real "ought"...

Here is a very convincing argument on How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle. The moral-facts-denier are welcome to counter the argument below; How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" John R. Searle The Philosophical Review Vol. 73, No. 1 (Jan., 1964), pp. 43-58 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2183201?seq=1...

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assesse...

DNA wise all humans are "programmed" with an inherent function with the drive to acquire knowledge, i.e. " to know " which culminated in Science-proper from Bacon and later, others. Theology on the other hand is not "programmed" inherently but emerged via 'nurture' in response to the terrible impul...

Note: all your above moral-facts-denying impulses are not based on sound reasoning but merely based on an active ideological impulse - where its origin is from the Logical Positivists . I will prepare a justification on this thesis later. There are a long list of very good reasons why the Logical-P...

Not sure of your precise point. If you are not sure of 'what is a fact' this is the thread to explore; What is a Fact? https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486 The moral fact deniers has a different definition of 'fact' from the norm. If you are not sure whether there are moral fac...

So you agree: that what we call a fact exists only within a system and framework of knowledge does not mean that any system and framework of knowledge can produce facts - and that not all claims made in any system and framework of knowledge will be facts. Each claim in any context has to be assesse...

A language-game (German: Sprachspiel) is a philosophical concept developed by Ludwig Wittgenstein, referring to simple examples of language use and the actions into which the language is woven. Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the “rule” of the “gam...

I used the word 'discourse' as a synonym for your tedious invention, 'system and framework of knowledge'. So, to repeat: That a fact exists in a discourse does not mean any discourse can produce facts. I aaume you agree. If not, why not? For example, do you think theology is a 'system and framework...

It was only when Bacon and others who took the effort to establish Science-proper around 500 years ago You've got your timing wrong. But Francis Bacon was indeed the inventor of the scientific method. There's no speaking of "science-proper" as you put it, before there was a method defining it. Ther...

So, here's my issue: I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to see things the way you guys and science and the like do. Honestly, I do. However, I have reservations on the notion of a "fact" that are getting in my way. ..... Anyways, is that clear? If not, could you help me clear it up? Thanks guys! I'm...

So - to be CLEAR. You say there are such things as moral facts BUT you cannot think of one; or you do not want to say what you think is one because you know it will be shown to be false; or you forgot what they are? 1. 'All humans are programmed to be breathe to survive so not to die' This is a bio...

This is exactly what I told you yesterday was going to happen to your DNA based moral theory. If you make facts of DNA into "Facts of Morality" then you are certain to have moral facts that you cannot possibly agree with. See below for a small reminder. Dude, there's a massive and obvious problem w...