Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

[Terrapin Station]

Why do I have to keep repeating this? the issue is whether the extension is ONE THING. It's identical to itself if it's one thing.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself? how do you determine whether the extension is "ONE THING" without making some assumptions about ontology?

With respect to what I'm asking about Gewirth, we're not determining whether the extension IS one thing, but whether Gewirth has in mind that it CAN BE.

[Skepdick]

With respect to what I'm asking about Gewirth, we're not determining whether the extension IS one thing, but whether Gewirth has in mind that it CAN BE.

"To understand" is to recover the author's original intent.

Since you can't actually determine whether Gewirth intends to reference one or two things, it sounds to me that you don't understand Gewirth!

Fucking Aspie.

[Advocate]

For those of us who got here late and don't want to read 12 pages, where are we at in relation to OP?

[Skepdick]

For those of us who got here late and don't want to read 12 pages, where are we at in relation to OP?

Terrapin Station cannot recover Gewirth's intention, so he's speculating (projecting) his own misunderstanding, since he doesn't understand the Inscrutability of reference

Nor does he understand the difference between interactive (duplex) and non-interactive (simplex) communication.

[Terrapin Station]

With respect to what I'm asking about Gewirth, we're not determining whether the extension IS one thing, but whether Gewirth has in mind that it CAN BE.

"To understand" is to recover the author's original intent.

Since you can't actually determine whether Gewirth intends to reference one or two things, it sounds to me that you don't understand Gewirth!

Fucking Aspie.

Again, it's not whether he IS doing this, but whether X and P can have the same extension. It certainly wouldn't be that they always do. The issue is just whether his argument works in a situation where they do have the same extension.

Since we can no longer ask him, textual evidence would tell us well enough whether Gewirth had this possibility in mind and/or whether his argument would work just in case X and P can have the same extension.

[Terrapin Station]

For those of us who got here late and don't want to read 12 pages, where are we at in relation to OP?

I'm trying to get us to discuss Gewirth's argument in some detail, but can't even begin to get that task off the ground.

Skepdick is trying to entertain himself via trolling.

[Skepdick]

Again, it's not whether he IS doing this, but whether X and P can have the same extension.

Well, since you disagree with Gewirth, it's obvious to everybody that you think that they can.

But it's not obvious to anybody whether Gewirth thought that.

It certainly wouldn't be that they always do. The issue is just whether his argument works in a situation where they do have the same extension.

Would you say that the situations in which his argument works significantly (say orders of magnitude) outweigh the situations in which his argument doesn't work?

Because you disagree with him... so I figure you must think his argument mostly doesn't work.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, since you disagree with Gewirth, it's obvious to everybody that you think that they can.

I'd only be disagreeing if his argument hinges on saying that X and P can't have the same extension.

I don't know if he's saying that. Hence my asking about it.

Would you say that the situations in which his argument works significantly (say orders of magnitude) outweigh the situations in which his argument doesn't work?

It's not clear to me how the argument would work if X and P can't have the same extension. Again, hence my asking for someone who'd claim that it could work in that situation to explain how it would.

You don't seem to realize that I'm asking questions and not making statements about this.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,

• - one can derived ought from is.

You are clueless about this problem.
Hume's point was that there is NEVER a necessary connection, and that moralists tend to assume a connection between is and ought without thinking they need to make the connection explicit.
Everything you have typed on this topic is null and void because you do not get that.
You have here, nothing more than a pathetic strawman.

Point is you are very ignorant as Hume was during his time in the 1700s.
Hume is/ought distinction was against theism imposing their divine oughts on believers and others.

Hume did state the morality origin is from sympathy [i.e. empathy].
At present we have naturalism with the advance knowledge of neuroscience, cognitive science, neuropsychology, etc. to understand the natural inherent oughtness within the human brain.
This inherent oughtness when processed via the moral FSK is a moral fact to be used as a moral standard and guide.

Your sort of thinking to too archaic and is stuck in the time warp of ancient classical analytic philosophy.
Btw, have you read Rorty's Mirror of Nature as recommended by PantFlasher.

[Veritas Aequitas]

For those of us who got here late and don't want to read 12 pages, where are we at in relation to OP?

I'm trying to get us to discuss Gewirth's argument in some detail, but can't even begin to get that task off the ground.

Skepdick is trying to entertain himself via trolling.

Point is you are imposing your off tangent views on the OP where you are merely relying on the secondary interpretation of Gewirth's from Stilley's thesis.
You should read Gewirth's paper to understand [not necessary agree] his point thoroughly so you don't have to wonder whether Gewirth stated X and P are the same or not.

I have repeatedly explained what is Gewirth's position on that matter, but it seem you are blind to it and dogmatically stuck to your off tangent position.

[Skepdick]

It's not clear to me how the argument would work if X and P can't have the same extension.

It would work like any other modality/contextually.

You are aware of modality and contextuality, so I am curious as to how you managed to forget about them this time.

You don't seem to realize that I'm asking questions and not making statements about this.

I realize more than that... You are doing philosophy by playing stupid. Apparently your pet-peeve is only a pet-peeve when others are doing it.

[Skepdick]

I'm trying to get us to discuss Gewirth's argument in some detail, but can't even begin to get that task off the ground.

You were trying to get the task off the ground? Are you bullshitting us or yourself?

You were shooting down Gewirth's's argument out of the sky before you even understood it. And on a pretty fucking trivial ground at that. "Lack of universality". Lol. You still believe in universals? My uncle died and left me millions - I need your help getting the money out of Africa!

The problems with Gewirth's argument are legion, but begin at the very beginning: Gewirth says, "when we act, we do so for a purpose." That certainly is NOT universally the case.

Skepdick is trying to entertain himself via trolling.

Your behaviour determines my behaviour. If I am trolling then you are trolling.

[Sculptor]

So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,

• - one can derived ought from is.

You are clueless about this problem.
Hume's point was that there is NEVER a necessary connection, and that moralists tend to assume a connection between is and ought without thinking they need to make the connection explicit.
Everything you have typed on this topic is null and void because you do not get that.
You have here, nothing more than a pathetic strawman.

Point is you are very ignorant as Hume was during his time in the 1700s.

I've studied him at masters level. How about you?

Hume is/ought distinction was against theism imposing their divine oughts on believers and others.

True to a point and not contrary to what I said.

Hume did state the morality origin is from sympathy [i.e. empathy].
At present we have naturalism with the advance knowledge of neuroscience, cognitive science, neuropsychology, etc. to understand the natural inherent oughtness within the human brain.
This inherent oughtness when processed via the moral FSK is a moral fact to be used as a moral standard and guide.

Your sort of thinking to too archaic and is stuck in the time warp of ancient classical analytic philosophy.
Btw, have you read Rorty's Mirror of Nature as recommended by PantFlasher.

Utterly irrelevant.
You are still clueless.
If it were the case to simply derive an ought from an is, then you could solve the mystery by giving some examples.
Sadly you are not only clueless but incapable.

[Advocate]

Ok, i get it now, this is about history of philosophy, not thoughts and reason.

[Skepdick]

Ok, i get it now, this is about history of philosophy, not thoughts and reason.

Any system will fight for its continued existence to the very end.

Even if that system has outlived its usefulness/necessity. Self-justification.