is/ought, final answer

[Veritas Aequitas]

I only used it here because it is Immanuel Kant's phrase, and Vaginal Aquafresh is keen to remind us that he spent 3 years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hours a day, and because he is too stupid to understand what is wrong with goal derivation in this context no matter what phrase we use.

How can you be qualified to comment about Kant if you have not read it, as commonly understood, requires 3 years full-time to fully comprehend [not necessary agree with] Kant's philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Optional?
I have asked which normal human would want to stop breathing.

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

[Skepdick]

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.

Then don't use it as a basis? Use end-states as starting points then work backwards.

Start with the solution(s) and work back to the problem.

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.

That you have been programmed to demand on "foundations" "basis" "premises" etc is just the normative artefacts of the religion that you practice.

We OUGHT TO have foundations is the premise/goal of the Philosophical religion. We don't have foundations is the fact.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Fuck off.

[Skepdick]

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.

Fuck off.

It's recursive.

Retard.

To interpret anything as "true" you need a model/theory of truth. It's precisely your model/theory which determines what it means for something to be "true" within a particular FSK.

Model theory is precisely the branch of Logic/Mathematics which deals with meaning.

Too bad you don't have an FSK which tells us what it means for an "argument to be true"

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay then. Let's see if Vegetable Aquarium is actually stupid enough to try and hide behind your alternative logics in defence of his syllogism.

[Skepdick]

Okay then. Let's see if Vegetable Aquarium is actually stupid enough to try and hide behind your alternative logics in defence of his syllogism.

Syllogisms only exist within an FSK.

The FSK determines what a "syllogism is", and it determines what it means for the syllogism to be "true".

You are stupid enough to hide behind your logic and pretending it's normative. People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

For somebody who keeps peddling Rorty's Mirror of Nature you sure don't understand its fucking implications.

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay then. Let's see if Vegetable Aquarium is actually stupid enough to try and hide behind your alternative logics in defence of his syllogism.

Syllogisms only exist within an FSK.

The FSK determines what a "syllogism is", and it determines what it means for the syllogism to be "true".

You are stupid enough to hide behind your logic and pretending it's normative. People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

For somebody who keeps peddling Rorty's Mirror of Nature you sure don't understand its fucking implications.

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.

Until then, issuing a syllogistic argument, claiming things such as premises in support of a conclusion, from which knowledge of some sort can be justified is to participate in a social practise, a communal form of discourse. To say "I present this argument that from such and such a set of premises we can reach this or that justified conclusion" is to participate in the whole of that thing, it is a statement that you are competent to use concepts such as premise and conclusion in the way that they are used by all who participate in this same thing.

You may have opted out of all that, but nothing you've written here in years has been worth reading largely because of that choice.

[Skepdick]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not a moral ought, it's goal-derived. If you want to play the language game, get the hang of the rules.

Its not derived from some transcendetal plane of truth, it's just a customary set of useful postulates adopted pragmatically by a society and indeed subject to change.

But it's not random, just because it could have been other than it is now, and may indeed be different in a hundred years. If your argument is viciously circular, in the here and now, that invalidates it. Calling it recursive is mere euphemism.

The argument is dead, if you call that "disanimation" it makes no difference to the dead thing.

[Skepdick]

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!

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[Skepdick]

The second sentence right there in that quote explains a goal.

WOAH WOAH WOAH! So you admit that you derived an ought?!? I mean it might not be a "moral" ought, but it is an OUGHT.
And you are treating it as prescriptive so... that's progress, dude! You are a genius! Keep talking!

What did you derive the non-moral ought from?

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.

Bowing out when cornered, as usual.

[Advocate]

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=498469 time=1614087280 user_id=11800]
It's not a moral ought, it's goal-derived.
[/quote]

All OUGHTs are goal-derived. Moral ones are the ones that work but can't normally be explicitly defended.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not a moral ought, it's goal-derived.

All OUGHTs are goal-derived. Moral ones are the ones that work but can't normally be explicitly defended.

Do you understand that you are trying to derive an ought from an is, not from a goal?

Do you have any conception of why anyone would want to do that? Bear in mind that Skepdick doesn't really, and it's hard to say whether Vestibule can remember either.