Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:23 am
Then you can't very well claim that it's a person-independent fact that any "is" implies any "ought." Which is all I care about here--to dispel that myth.
I can claim whatever I want to. Especially if you don't like it.
I claim many things especially because it pisses of dogmatic Philosophers.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:23 am
Then you can't very well claim that it's a person-independent fact that any "is" implies any "ought." Which is all I care about here--to dispel that myth.
Geez, are you getting lazy? What happened to taking issue with me writing "Of course," where you think you're being clever in talking about some interpretation or analytic angle you think I'm overlooking?
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:32 pm
So what? Prior to establishing that there is some reason we "ought" to do what is normal, you cannot use normal as a basis for what we "ought" to do.
You are too dogmatic with classical logic which is not applicable to a lot of nuances related to the finer things of life and human nature.
And you are just avoiding the question still.
Please answer it, it has been asked enough times now
The question 'so what?" ??
I have already provided the detailed counter to whatever your point.
You are too dogmatic with [b]classical logic[/b] which is not applicable to a lot of nuances related to the finer things of life and human nature.[/quote]
And you are just avoiding the question still.
Please answer it, it has been asked enough times now
[/quote]
The question 'so what?" ??
I have already provided the detailed counter to whatever your point.
[/quote]
Are you trying to say that OUGHTs aren't possible or that they come from somewhere else than ISes? Because neither possibility is possible.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:32 pm
Remember you cannot use any FSK stuff in this argument - the argument is required for the FSK to have any claim to be a source of truth. You wouldn't want to be dismissed after all this effort for mere circularity.
That's an error on behalf of the dismissor. Recursion is not circular.
The FSK relies on the is/ough argument to be true
The is ought argument relies on the FSK for a required premise to mean anything at all.
It's circular.
You don't seem to get my point.
1. The moral ought, moral fact depend on the moral FSK,
2. The moral FSK depend its own constitution [verification and justifications empirically and philosophically] and on facts from the scientific FSK and other FSK.
3. The scientific FSK depend on its constitution [verification and justifications empirically and philosophically] and the condition of being human
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:07 pm
How totally exciting.
Within that FSK circular arguments are deductively unsound. If you want to deal in some other logic where circular self referential shit is deemed reinforcing then you kind of need your own sandpit where you are in charge of the rules, and we'll see if any of the other kids want to play in it
Within your FSK you don't have any "truth" to deduce anything from, so all of your conclusions are impossible to be sound anyway.
I trust you are going to tell us all how you have deduced that your premises are true in a non-circular non-self-reinforcing way.
But if you could arrive at "truth" via means other than deduction then you don't need deduction or soundness!
But I am really really glad that you've mentioned THE RULES which all the kids OUGH to play by. I can't fucking wait for you to tell all the kids how you deduced those and why everybody OUGHT to play by the rules.
Read the Mirror of Nature again. Maybe you'll understand it this time.
PantFlasher,
you need to read the Mirror of Nature again, which I note condemned the sorts of views you are holding on to.
Can you quote where in the Mirror of Nature that would condemn my views?
All facts are conditioned upon their specific FSK.
I have derived my moral oughts i.e. moral facts as verified and justified empirically and philosophically from within a moral FSK. [wonder your understand what I meant by FSK, i.e. framework and system of knowledge or FSR = framework and system of reality.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:34 pm
It's not a moral ought, it's goal-derived. If you want to play the language game, get the hang of the rules.
I see. So it's not a "moral" OUGHT but it is an OUGHT.
Keep talking, moron.
And, so if it is goal-derived OUGHT (which seems awfully lot like you are agreeing with my "dead" argument) do you want to tell us what the goal is?
The language game is played towards figuring out how to attain the goal.
The language game is not supposed to be played towards figuring out what the goal is.
You use metaphors for that!
The second sentence right there in that quote explains a goal.
You are wearing out my patience again. I can't spend my day juggling two autitsts and a narcissist in one thread, and you are I am afraid the first one to be discarded this time.
Btw, WHO ARE YOU to play GOD, i.e. the God of Philosophy.
I believed you are the philosophical retard who is stuck in a time warp of ancient dogmatic philosophy.
From hereon you are on my foe list and I suggest you do the same with me.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:56 am
Geez, are you getting lazy? What happened to taking issue with me writing "Of course," where you think you're being clever in talking about some interpretation or analytic angle you think I'm overlooking?
"Analytic angle"?
If you are doing analysis you are overlooking everything.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:03 pm
That's an error on behalf of the dismissor. Recursion is not circular.
The FSK relies on the is/ough argument to be true
The is ought argument relies on the FSK for a required premise to mean anything at all.
It's circular.
You don't seem to get my point.
1. The moral ought, moral fact depend on the moral FSK,
2. The moral FSK depend its own constitution [verification and justifications empirically and philosophically] and on facts from the scientific FSK and other FSK.
3. The scientific FSK depend on its constitution [verification and justifications empirically and philosophically] and the condition of being human
What is the issue with the above?
Scientific method applies to observable measurable phenomena. Scince doesn't need to bridge the is/ough gap because it doesn't attempt to describe oughts, so it derives ISes from ISes.
You however have you FSK that is a project in describing oughts which you have chosen to be the only approved set of oughts. And for that, you need a reason why it is correct to exclude oughts that you didn't choose. So you need them to be factually wrong, and you do need to derive oughts from is. And you know all this because it's why you have 10 threads devoted to deriving ought from is.
Your argument is circular, but only if you get that far. Prior to the circularity problem, you still have the issue that your P2 is inexplicable.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:06 am
PantFlasher,
you need to read the Mirror of Nature again, which I note condemned the sorts of views you are holding on to.
Can you quote where in the Mirror of Nature that would condemn my views?
If you ever get to the point where you canusefully reference it instead of just speculating that Rorty would be on your side if he met you, I might have some reason to crack my copy open again.
I only recommended that book because you were flailing in your efforts to draft Wittgenstein into your silly theories, I was just pointing you at another book that tells a similar story but with much more context, and not chopped up into a series of semi-organised fortune cookies.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:14 am
Scientific method applies to observable measurable phenomena. Scince doesn't need to bridge the is/ough gap because it doesn't attempt to describe oughts, so it derives ISes from ISes.
Tell that to your doctor next time they recommend treatment.
Or the guy designing the brakes for your car.
You are anthropomorphising science and this applied scientist is laughing in your idiotic face.
Attacking reductionism by reducing it is about as stupid as Philosophy gets.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:53 am
And you are just avoiding the question still.
Please answer it, it has been asked enough times now
The question 'so what?" ??
I have already provided the detailed counter to whatever your point.
Are you trying to say that OUGHTs aren't possible or that they come from somewhere else than ISes? Because neither possibility is possible.
It looks like the shorthand 'no ought can come from an is' can be mistaken to mean that oughts and is-s are real things, like cows and calves.
Reminder: 'no ought can come from an is' means that a fact can't entail or induce a non-factual conclusion, such as one asserting an 'ought'. Talk about the possibility or impossibility of oughts is deranged.
