an instance of opposition or contrast between two concepts or two aspects of something - Google Dictionary.
The dichotomy of NOFI as highlighted by Hume is reinforced by the Laws of Classical Logic, i.e. Law of Excluded Middle and Law of Non-Contradiction, i.e. what is 'descriptive' [is] cannot be 'prescriptive' [ought] in the same sense.
So the problem of NOFI for Humeans is basically reduced to the principle 'opposites can NEVER be reconciliable' e.g. "East is East and West is West and Never The Twain Shall Meet."
However from another perspective of reality, i.e. the principle of complementarity;
whilst opposites oppose each other, they nevertheless interact complementarily.
- Example, the Principles of Yin-Yang is, opposites do not opposes each other absolutely but rather are complementary to each other in a dynamic interaction.
In contrast to classical logic rules, the Yin-Yang principles do not recognize the excluded-middle.
The critical point is there is always Yin-in-Yang and Yang-in-Yin interacting with each other all the time, within a common basis, the Tao. Thus each do not exists independently from the other in the absolute sense.
This how the apparent dichotomy and duality of things existing as either particle or wave can be maintained and reconciled on the basis of dynamic complementariness, which is as reflected in the fundamental principle of the Yin-Yang principle.
However, from the perspective of Yin-Yang complementariness,
"Yin"-is-in-"Yang" and "Yang"-is-in-"Yin" interacting within reality - all-there-is.
The Principles of Yin-Yang is a fundamental of Reality - all-there-is.
Whatever is "is" and "ought" they are part and parcel of reality - all-there-is.
Thus we can apply the Principles of Yin-Yang to 'is' and 'ought' which are both part and parcel of reality.
According the the Principles of complementarity e.g. in Yin-Yang,
"is"-is-in-"ought" and "ought"-is-in-"is"
both grounded on the human conditions - the moral framework and system [the Tao].
Therefore "is" and "ought" whilst are opposites they do interact with each other in complementarity.
Thus "is" enable "ought" and "ought" enable "is".
This process operates within the human system, the moral framework & system and universe in enabling moral oughts [mental/physical states] which are moral facts.
What is 'is' is reality, i.e. all-there is.
What is 'ought' is confined as a mental state grounded on the physical brain and body, which are also part and parcel of reality - all-there-is.
Within a Moral Framework and System, these 'ought_s' are moral facts.
There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
Whatever is claimed to be moral facts must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically, thus are Justified True Moral Facts/Beliefs [as with JTBs].
One critical point: Justified True Moral "oughts" are not to be enforced on humans or as threats but rather to be used as merely standards [norms, imperatives] to guide moral development.
From the above,
therefore we can derive 'ought' from 'is' on the basis of complementarity.
ps, the above principle of complementarity is applied to resolve the fact vs value dichotomy.
Views?