Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:53 pm This is the problem with commenting too much. I gave you other stuff to troll about instead of waiting for you to just comment on "It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only 'reason' behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it" . . . one reason I added more was anticipation of an Aspieish interpretation of "reason."
No, you were testing my behaviour.

Like any behaviourist would.

The problem is that you are not working towards falsifying your experiment.
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:54 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:53 pm This is the problem with commenting too much. I gave you other stuff to troll about instead of waiting for you to just comment on "It depends on the exact scenario at hand. In some cases, the only 'reason' behind the action is the action itself, and there's nothing else to it" . . . one reason I added more was anticipation of an Aspieish interpretation of "reason."
No, you were testing my behaviour.

Like any behaviourist would.

The problem is that you are not working towards falsifying your experiment.
With that and $10 you can win a chicken dinner.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:55 pm With that and $10 you can win a chicken dinner.
Or you can justify your belief in unmotivated reasoning.

Since you claim that there can be such thing as 'reason behind the action is the action itself'
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

At any rate, I'm actually interested in the Gewirth stuff. I'm not interested in other nonsense just for nonsense's sake.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:57 pm At any rate, I'm actually interested in the Gewirth stuff. I'm not interested in other nonsense just for nonsense's sake.
Sure. Can you tell me why you disagree with Gewirth if you don't even understand his argument?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:57 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:57 pm At any rate, I'm actually interested in the Gewirth stuff. I'm not interested in other nonsense just for nonsense's sake.
Sure. Can you tell me why you disagree with Gewirth if you don't even understand his argument?
As I said:

It seemed to me that Gewirth's argument was hinging on the notion that P and X are different, where this is a universal situation. If that's the case, then there is a problem with the argument (and I'd disagree with the argument), because in reality, P and X aren't different in every scenario.

Veritas seemed to suggest that P and X aren't necessarily different in Gewirth's argument. So I was trying to clarify that Veritas was saying that Gewirth's argument would still work even if P and X are the same, and then I wanted him to explain how the argument would work if they're the same.

That's as far as we got, before (a) Veritas kept stalling with claims that I was misquoting Gewirth when I wasn't quoting him at all, and (b) you got involved and decided to entertain yourself with a bunch of irrelevant tangents.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm It seemed to me that Gewirth's argument was hinging on the notion that P and X are different, where this is a universal situation.
You are contradicting yourself.

Just yesterday (or rather recently) YOU agreed/committed to that very universal premise: No two things are ever the same.

You agreed with the premises upon which Gerwith's argument hinges upon.

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:16 pm If that's the case, then there is a problem with the argument (and I'd disagree with the argument), because in reality, P and X aren't different in every scenario.
So right here you are doing a U-turn on your very own premise of absolute difference between ANY two things.

So, now you suddenly disagree with Gerwith even though his premises are the same as yours. Your disagreement seems entirely manufactured!

Just because P and X refer to "the same thing" it doesn't mean that P and X mean "the same thing". P and X could be semantically different even if they are referentially "the same".

And you don't seem to understand that because you can't navigate around the different uses of "sameness" (and I am supposed to be the Aspie)
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:10 pm You are contradicting yourself . . .
Trying to get you to understand such simple stuff isn't very interesting here.

"P and X are the same" is a way of saying that it's like fingers pointing to one object. It's not literally talking about the letters P and X or anything like that. We went through all of this already.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:14 pm Trying to get you to understand such simple stuff isn't very interesting here.
I am trying to get you to understand that you don't understand.

It's not interesting, alas...
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:14 pm "P and X are the same" is a way of saying that it's like fingers pointing to one object. It's not literally talking about the letters P and X or anything like that. We went through all of this already.
Which part of this did you not understand?
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:10 pm Just because P and X refer to "the same thing" it doesn't mean that P and X mean "the same thing". P and X could be semantically different even if they are referentially "the same".
For example P could be the reductionist interpretation of the thing you are pointing at, and X is the holistic interpretation of the thing you are pointing at.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:16 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:14 pm Trying to get you to understand such simple stuff isn't very interesting here.
I am trying to get you to understand that you don't understand.

It's not interesting, alas...
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:14 pm "P and X are the same" is a way of saying that it's like fingers pointing to one object. It's not literally talking about the letters P and X or anything like that. We went through all of this already.
Which part of this did you not understand?
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:10 pm Just because P and X refer to "the same thing" it doesn't mean that P and X mean "the same thing". P and X could be semantically different even if they are referentially "the same".
For example P could be the reductionist interpretation of the thing you are pointing at, and X is the holistic interpretation of the thing you are pointing at.
I'm talking about the references--the extensions, not semantic interpretations of them.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:19 pm I'm talking about the references--the extensions, not semantic interpretations of them.
And I am talking about the determination of whether two references are ever "the same"
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:20 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:19 pm I'm talking about the references--the extensions, not semantic interpretations of them.
And I am talking about the determination of whether two references are "the same"
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.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Terrapin Station »

It's not interesting to have to explain to someone playing stupid what we're talking about re "the same."

That doesn't even matter. We can just answer what Gewirth would say.

And I said that already.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:21 pm 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?
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:22 pm That doesn't even matter. We can just answer what Gewirth would say.
So you are a mind reader?!?

Or are you PROJECTING/PREDICTING "what Gewirth would say" given your misunderstanding of Gewirth ?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply