Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:22 pm
By deriving (base a concept on a logical extension or modification of (another concept)) i merely meant came from, but it's technically correct either way. All things on the "spiritual" side of this line (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is contingent (salience, perspective, and priority) and based on things on the material side of the line.
All concepts exist. Even god exists as a concept, and oughts, like all other spiritual concepts, also does real, material, world work. It's as real as real gets. It's simply not physically so until we can correlate the patterns in the brain.
You're doing quite well with your skepticism, but there's no purpose to it if it doesn't help lead to actionable certainty. Skepticism/deconstruction is only a first step, but it's far from helpful here because my OPs Are deconstructed, and put back together with the glue of logical necessity.
I'm not following Sam, i've independently derived almost everything i've ever thought, but his is the example most people will be able to connect with. He's better than almost anyone else i've heard of, incidentally. He's more logical than Pinker, for example.
Why should people care about purpose and 'actionable certainty'?
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:09 pm
Why should people follow any reasons?
I follow reasons because it helps me get what i want.
Why should people get what they want? We can do this forever and you'll never produce an ought from an is.
They're contingent, hasn't this been covered adequately? IF you want X THEN Y is a better way to get it than Z. You SHOULD operate in the best way to get your desires because that's what you want for yourself. Therefore you SHOULD do Y. You create your own SHOULDs. As far as we agree upon our objectives, that's our shared SHOULDs.
I follow reasons because it helps me get what i want.
Why should people get what they want? We can do this forever and you'll never produce an ought from an is.
They're contingent, hasn't this been covered adequately? IF you want X THEN Y is a better way to get it than Z. You SHOULD operate in the best way to get your desires because that's what you want for yourself. Therefore you SHOULD do Y. You create your own SHOULDs. As far as we agree upon our objectives, that's our shared SHOULDs.
Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 4:54 pm
Why should people get what they want? We can do this forever and you'll never produce an ought from an is.
They're contingent, hasn't this been covered adequately? IF you want X THEN Y is a better way to get it than Z. You SHOULD operate in the best way to get your desires because that's what you want for yourself. Therefore you SHOULD do Y. You create your own SHOULDs. As far as we agree upon our objectives, that's our shared SHOULDs.
Why should I fulfill my desires?
If you don't want to fulfill your desires then you SHOULD still accept this understanding because it's the best way to do that too.
They're contingent, hasn't this been covered adequately? IF you want X THEN Y is a better way to get it than Z. You SHOULD operate in the best way to get your desires because that's what you want for yourself. Therefore you SHOULD do Y. You create your own SHOULDs. As far as we agree upon our objectives, that's our shared SHOULDs.
Why should I fulfill my desires?
If you don't want to fulfill your desires then you SHOULD still accept this understanding because it's the best way to do that too.
