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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:27 pmWhy do I have to keep repeating myself? how do you determine whether the extension is "ONE THING" without making some assumptions about ontology?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.
Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:29 pm 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.
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
For those of us who got here late and don't want to read 12 pages, where are we at in relation to OP?
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
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
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:31 pmTerrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:29 pm 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.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.
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
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Well, since you disagree with Gewirth, it's obvious to everybody that you think that they can.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:09 pm Again, it's not whether he IS doing this, but whether X and P can have the same extension.
But it's not obvious to anybody whether Gewirth thought that.
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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:09 pm 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.
Because you disagree with him... so I figure you must think his argument mostly doesn't work.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 4548
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
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.
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.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?
You don't seem to realize that I'm asking questions and not making statements about this.
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Point is you are very ignorant as Hume was during his time in the 1700s.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:53 pmYou are clueless about this problem.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
- - one can derived ought from is.
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 12959
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:10 pmI'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.
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
It would work like any other modality/contextually.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:16 pm It's not clear to me how the argument would work if X and P can't have the same extension.
You are aware of modality and contextuality, so I am curious as to how you managed to forget about them this time.
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.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:16 pm You don't seem to realize that I'm asking questions and not making statements about this.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
You were trying to get the task off the ground? Are you bullshitting us or yourself?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:10 pm 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 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!
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 2:32 pm 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.
Your behaviour determines my behaviour. If I am trolling then you are trolling.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:10 pm Skepdick is trying to entertain himself via trolling.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
I've studied him at masters level. How about you?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:32 amPoint is you are very ignorant as Hume was during his time in the 1700s.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:53 pmYou are clueless about this problem.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:13 am So far I have raised about 13 threads to support the points,
- - one can derived ought from is.
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.
True to a point and not contrary to what I said.Hume is/ought distinction was against theism imposing their divine oughts on believers and others.
Utterly irrelevant.
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.
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.
Re: Gerwith: IS/OUGHT Resolved Rationally
Ok, i get it now, this is about history of philosophy, not thoughts and reason.