is/ought, final answer

[Skepdick]

Even if what i'm trying to do is totally solipcistic, that does not affect it's pragmatic function one iota-speck.

In so far as you are re-inventing the wheel - it does.

You are preaching pragmatism to a pragmatist and you are re-inventing (more like re-discovering) knowledge that's broadly spread in society.

What you are preaching is not new. It's only new to you. You think you are discovering, when you are just learning.

The foundation for understanding everything in the universe is metaphysics and epistemology - Truth wisdom. Words like self-reference, regress, circular, have no place in any rational system of understanding - that would be to formalize ignorance as knowledge. The universe is self-referential in every way possible so appeal to that particular sort of feature as a problem is incoherent. Our epistemology needs to be certain Enough, because transcendent certainty is never an actual option.

Yeah. Know thyself.

Either the structure of the universe is recursive or the structure of the instrument we use to understand the universe with is recursive: our minds.
It is difficult to distinguish the two cases in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_projection_fallacy

That's where epistemology stops...

If there's anything that can't be explained rationally it simply means we don't understand it yet. The universe is infinitely casual and anything that belles that fact is ignorance.

Yeah, keep throwing more words at it... "rational", "understand", "explained" - you have absolutely no idea what any of those words mean.

Tell me what happens when you have rationally understood and explained the universe. What would you experience when that event occurs?

The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty. Replicated experience provides certainty. When it's of external experience/material measurement, that's scientific/empirical. When it's about the relationships between entities, that's logical.

Actionable certainty towards what mission/goal ?

"Part of the universe trying to understand itself" does not indicate a logical problem for anything i've said. I don't know what you're looking for but the answers are all right there and they're simple. Can we move from answers to solutions yet?

In my field of work there's a saying... defining the problem is half the solution.

You want solutions, but you haven't told me what your problem is.

Since you're going to misinterpret everything i just said and ignore the parts that address the other parts anyhow, let me reiterate the part that matters most; The foundation of everything is replicable certainty, aka epistemology, and the metaphysical Truths that are apparent when you get it right.

Replicable certainty...

What is it that you are trying to replicate? Yourself? Your mind?

[Veritas Aequitas]

That analogy about dams is poor, but beside the point. You are sidestepping into a completely different argument with different weaknesses to the one I was attacking.

Either your argument I was referencing is deductive - in which case all-that-there-is can be said to contain 'oughtness' to the exact extent that it contains 'unicornness' and 'tastelesstrouserness'. Or the world-contains-oughntess thing was supposed to be empirical, in which case you can show what an actual unit of oughtness is by pointing to some ought that is there be weighed and tagged.

The 'ougthness' that I intended to justify is not by deduction but rather induction.

As I had stated, whatever is a moral fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system [FSK], like the scientific FSK which is the most credible at present.

You can infer it yourself,

So, to be entirely clear about this, you are absolutely not claiming that "P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is true by definition in any sense at all. You are trying to have that purely as an inference from experience?

Oughtness is imaginary though. Just as weirdness is, and sexiness. You can point at a thing and say it is weird or wrong, but weirdness and wrongness are not empirical properties of the objects you point at. So the dubious claim to observe the existence of some quantitiy of weird by looking at a frog and thinking "weird" is not a claim about reality in the same sense that the pointing indicates the presence of an actual frog.

So, no. As things stand, the premise "P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is simply false and your "'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality" argument doesn't work.

Attempting to use that FSK thing to justify the premise would as I already tolsd you, be circular because using the premise to prop up the conclusion and the conclusion to prop up the premise is always so. But it can dismissed without that anyeay simply because the whole point of your moral FSK has always been just an effort to formalise a fiction. So if you really need to try and keep this thing alive as an inferential truth, you can't use the contentious FSK thing to justifyit, you have to somehow observe oughtness as a property that inheres to something in the world, even though if that were possible even in principle, this sort of tortured argument would be unnecessary, which gives me confidence you cannot do that.

You would have to try and convert it from an inductive claim that can be dismissed as unreasonable or incoherent, into some form of deductive truth by definition to try and save the argument. But it would be kinder to put it out of its misery to be honest.

Note Skepdick's response which I agree.

My argument is inductive [P2 edited to make it more clear], i.e.

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The syllogistic above is in the format;

• P1 A - B
  P2 B - C
  C1 C - A

The argument is deductive valid!
Why is the above not deductive?

C2 is merely a reframing. identity of and tautological to C1

My inductive affirmation of P2 is to justify and reinforce the premise is sound and realistic thus the conclusion is sound, realistic and factual.

You seem to have an aversion and abhorrence for induction, and so you have the same stance for scientific facts and knowledge which are based on the empirical and induction?

Nah, you are merely being rhetoric in conflating weirdness and sexiness with 'oughtness' in terms of moral facts. Even then I can prove [if need to] weirdness and sexiness are part and parcel of reality, i.e. all there is, thus are an "is." And weirdness and sexiness can be reducible and traced as "indentical" to some physical referent in the brain.

What I presented as 'moral oughtness' is similar to the 'oughtness' of one to breathe else one will die.

Yours views are dogmatically linguistic and of the bastardized analytic philosophy which is ultimately not realistic, thus ultimately a dead duck and fatuous.

At present I am reading Robert Hanna's
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
I will open a thread on this when I have a good grasp of the book.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Let me just clarify first whether you're saying here that you could interpret anything so that it's reducible to either realism or anti-realism?

I believe and is confident of doing that [with the caveat no human is Perfect].
Why not you put it to the test and give me examples where they cannot be?

The reason I'm clarifying whether you're talking about your own interpretation rather than their reports about what they're doing is that anyone can insist on any arbitrary interpretation of anything, where if they're committed enough about that, they can make whatever gerrymandered moves they need to make to keep themselves convinced that everything fits their interpretation. I don't think that's any significant feat, and it doesn't convince anyone else. Meanwhile, the person with the interpretation in question can't be swayed from their interpretation no matter what--it's always unfalsifiable to them. This only tells us about the interpreter's myopic commitment to an agenda.

Arbitrary interpretation??

I am relying on principles of philosophy, i.e. note Philosophical Realism [PR],
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Today it [PR] is more usually contrasted with anti-realism [PaR], for example in the philosophy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I don't agree with Philosophy of Science as an example of philosophical anti-realism.
Classical Science [PR] re Newtonian is PR.
For Modern Science [PR or PaR] or Quantum Mechanics [PR or PaR] it depend on the views of various scientists.

Most [not all] of the Continental Philosophies are based on PaR. Nietzsche [perspectivism] is anti-realist, Kantian is PaR, and the likes.

The distinction between PR and PaR is very obvious from the History of Philosophy both Eastern and Western. I am from the East and my stronger foundation is that of Eastern Philosophies.

[FlashDangerpants]

The 'ougthness' that I intended to justify is not by deduction but rather induction.

As I had stated, whatever is a moral fact must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible framework and system [FSK], like the scientific FSK which is the most credible at present.

You can infer it yourself,

So, to be entirely clear about this, you are absolutely not claiming that "P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is true by definition in any sense at all. You are trying to have that purely as an inference from experience?

Oughtness is imaginary though. Just as weirdness is, and sexiness. You can point at a thing and say it is weird or wrong, but weirdness and wrongness are not empirical properties of the objects you point at. So the dubious claim to observe the existence of some quantitiy of weird by looking at a frog and thinking "weird" is not a claim about reality in the same sense that the pointing indicates the presence of an actual frog.

So, no. As things stand, the premise "P2 All-there-is comprises and includes 'ought_ness'" is simply false and your "'Ought' is 'Is' within Reality" argument doesn't work.

Attempting to use that FSK thing to justify the premise would as I already tolsd you, be circular because using the premise to prop up the conclusion and the conclusion to prop up the premise is always so. But it can dismissed without that anyeay simply because the whole point of your moral FSK has always been just an effort to formalise a fiction. So if you really need to try and keep this thing alive as an inferential truth, you can't use the contentious FSK thing to justifyit, you have to somehow observe oughtness as a property that inheres to something in the world, even though if that were possible even in principle, this sort of tortured argument would be unnecessary, which gives me confidence you cannot do that.

You would have to try and convert it from an inductive claim that can be dismissed as unreasonable or incoherent, into some form of deductive truth by definition to try and save the argument. But it would be kinder to put it out of its misery to be honest.

Note Skepdick's response which I agree.

You can't agree with it because it disagrees with you, that would be paradoxical. Very explicitly describing as a-priori that which you have previously, and again in this post here, claimed is inductive.

My argument is inductive [P2 edited to make it more clear], i.e.

• P1 IS = Reality, being, all-there-is.
  P2 All-there-is comprises oughtness, thus moral 'ought_ness'.
  C1 Thus a moral 'ought' is "is"
  C2 Therefore a moral-ought is derivable from "is'.

The syllogistic above is in the format;

• P1 A - B
  P2 B - C
  C1 C - A

The argument is deductive valid!
Why is the above not deductive?

It's far from clear still what the status of P2 is supposed to be. If somebody takes issue with whether or not it's an empirical fact, you seem to be happy to make like it's true by definition instead, if somebody takes issue with that, you decide you can make it true by observation.

As it stands the argument can't be described accurately. Until that can be done, there is no point wondering if it is deductively valid because there is no relationship at all between premise and conclusion.

My inductive affirmation of P2 is to justify and reinforce the premise is sound and realistic thus the conclusion is sound, realistic and factual.

You seem to have an aversion and abhorrence for induction, and so you have the same stance for scientific facts and knowledge which are based on the empirical and induction?

I have no aversion to induction at all, no particular problem with actual science. I do however object to completely unscientific religious, historical, political and moral arguments that attempt to pass as science by clothing themselves in stolen sciency-sounding language without the methodological rigour to justify it.

Nah, you are merely being rhetoric in conflating weirdness and sexiness with 'oughtness' in terms of moral facts. Even then I can prove [if need to] weirdness and sexiness are part and parcel of reality, i.e. all there is, thus are an "is." And weirdness and sexiness can be reducible and traced as "indentical" to some physical referent in the brain.

It's not empty rhetoric. But it doesn't matter right now. That stuff is how I wil choose break your argument if you decide that P2 is true by definition.

What I presented as 'moral oughtness' is similar to the 'oughtness' of one to breathe else one will die.

Mere hypothetical imperative.

Yours views are dogmatically linguistic and of the bastardized analytic philosophy which is ultimately not realistic, thus ultimately a dead duck and fatuous.

You aren't sophisticated enough to understand my views. It would plausibly have been interesting to find out the ways that all those people you call out in so many threads - me, Pete, Sculptor and so on - disagree with each other. But you have sucked the oxygen out of the sub, everyone looks the same simply because the only thing to do here is point out your basic errors that repeat over and over again every single fucking day.

At present I am reading Robert Hanna's
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
I will open a thread on this when I have a good grasp of the book.

Just read Rorty's Mirror of Nature.

[Skepdick]

Just read Rorty's Mirror of Nature.

Done. You should try to understand it.

Language is a tool. We use language to coordinate our social efforts towards the attainment of our goals - moral or otherwise. Just because language cannot account for our goals/vision doesn't mean we don't have any.

To insist that language/arguments ought to account for them is to default to the very Mirror of Nature mode of thinking which Rorty attacks.

But you have sucked the oxygen out of the sub, everyone looks the same simply because the only thing to do here is point out your basic errors that repeat over and over again every single fucking day.

Define "error" in a non-normative/non-moral/non-Mirror-of-Nature way.

For somebody who doesn't believe in morality, you sure put in a lot of effort to enforce social norms.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=497163 time=1613642205 user_id=17350]
[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=497162 time=1613641553 user_id=11800]
Just read Rorty's Mirror of Nature.
[/quote]
Done. You should try to understand it.

Language is a tool. We use language to coordinate our social efforts towards the attainment of our goals - moral or otherwise. Just because language cannot account for our goals/vision doesn't mean we don't have any.

To insist that language/arguments ought to account for them is to default to the very Mirror of Nature mode of thinking which Rorty attacks.

[quote=FlashDangerpants post_id=497162 time=1613641553 user_id=11800]
But you have sucked the oxygen out of the sub, everyone looks the same simply because the only thing to do here is point out your basic errors that repeat over and over again every single fucking day.
[/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Define "error" in a non-normative/non-moral/non-Mirror-of-Nature way.

For somebody who doesn't believe in morality, you sure put in a lot of effort to enforce social norms.
[/quote]

Language of always descriptive of experience. Our experience is also the basis for morality. Language can account for anything we've experienced to the extent that experience is shared by others. Remixing shared experiences of individual attributes into a new thing (ie unicorn) is allowed.

[bahman]

Just read Rorty's Mirror of Nature.

Done. You should try to understand it.

Language is a tool. We use language to coordinate our social efforts towards the attainment of our goals - moral or otherwise. Just because language cannot account for our goals/vision doesn't mean we don't have any.

To insist that language/arguments ought to account for them is to default to the very Mirror of Nature mode of thinking which Rorty attacks.

But you have sucked the oxygen out of the sub, everyone looks the same simply because the only thing to do here is point out your basic errors that repeat over and over again every single fucking day.

Define "error" in a non-normative/non-moral/non-Mirror-of-Nature way.

For somebody who doesn't believe in morality, you sure put in a lot of effort to enforce social norms.

Language of always descriptive of experience. Our experience is also the basis for morality. Language can account for anything we've experienced to the extent that experience is shared by others. Remixing shared experiences of individual attributes into a new thing (ie unicorn) is allowed.

I agree.

[Atla]

All-there-is may not include 'ought_ness', but I've been wondering, maybe it does include 'dumbass_ness'. I can almost come up with an objective measuring system for it.

[Advocate]

[quote=Atla post_id=497235 time=1613673161 user_id=15497]
All-there-is may not include 'ought_ness', but I've been wondering, maybe it does include 'dumbass_ness'. I can almost come up with an objective measuring system for it.
[/quote]

That could be your greatest gift to mankind.

[Atla]

All-there-is may not include 'ought_ness', but I've been wondering, maybe it does include 'dumbass_ness'. I can almost come up with an objective measuring system for it.

That could be your greatest gift to mankind.

Nah forget it, I built the dumbassness-o-meter and did some tests, the results seemed kinda promising. But then I input some of Skepdick's comments, the needle just kept spinning, smoke came out and then the whole thing blew up. Couldn't figure out the problem, apparently I still suck at building machines. Too bad, it was a good idea.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yours views are dogmatically linguistic and of the bastardized analytic philosophy which is ultimately not realistic, thus ultimately a dead duck and fatuous.

You aren't sophisticated enough to understand my views. It would plausibly have been interesting to find out the ways that all those people you call out in so many threads - me, Pete, Sculptor and so on - disagree with each other. But you have sucked the oxygen out of the sub, everyone looks the same simply because the only thing to do here is point out your basic errors that repeat over and over again every single fucking day.

At present I am reading Robert Hanna's
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
I will open a thread on this when I have a good grasp of the book.

Just read Rorty's Mirror of Nature.

I am very confident of my views given the sufficient research and wide/deep reflection I have done.

Per my records I downloaded Rorty's Philosophy and The Mirror of Nature in 2008, read it then but did not focus on it thereafter. Since you mentioned I will reread it and his Linguistic Turn.

I am aware Rorty had distanced himself from hardcore Analytic Philosophy but he was still stuck with its certain basic principles, thus his, Postanalytic philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy

Postanalytic philosophy describes a detachment from the mainstream philosophical movement of analytic philosophy, which is the predominant school of thought in English-speaking countries.
Postanalytic philosophy derives mainly from contemporary American thought, especially from the works of philosophers Richard Rorty, Donald Davidson, Hilary Putnam, W. V. O. Quine, and Stanley Cavell. The term is closely associated with the much broader movement of contemporary American pragmatism, which, loosely defined, advocates a detachment from the definition of 'objective truth' given by modern philosophers such as Descartes.
Postanalytic philosophers emphasize the contingency of human thought, convention, utility, and social progress.


The term "postanalytic philosophy" itself has been used in a vaguely descriptive sense and not in the sense of a concrete philosophical movement.
Many postanalytic philosophers write along an analytic vein and on traditionally analytic topics.
Richard Rorty said: "I think that analytic philosophy can keep its highly professional methods, the insistence on detail and mechanics, and just drop its transcendental project. I'm not out to criticize analytic philosophy as a style. It's a good style. I think the years of superprofessionalism were beneficial."[1]

Rorty says the goal of postanalytic philosophy is not to oppose analytic philosophy or its methods, but to dispute its hope to make philosophy the penultimate form of knowledge from which every other knowledge claim must be derived.

Postanalytic philosophy may also be known as post-philosophy,[2] a term used by Rorty, to emphasize the notion that the project of philosophy as conceived by Enlightenment philosophers no longer serves the role it used to in society and that this role has been replaced by other media.

Robert Hanna's critique of Analytic Philosophy
THE FATE OF ANALYSIS
Analytic Philosophy From Frege To The Ash Heap of History
also covered the post-classical-Analytic-Philosophy and its general views.

[Skepdick]

Language of always descriptive of experience. Our experience is also the basis for morality. Language can account for anything we've experienced to the extent that experience is shared by others. Remixing shared experiences of individual attributes into a new thing (ie unicorn) is allowed.

No. You are speaking about "experienced". That's past tense.

Language is descriptive, but it can describe the past, present (if there's such a thing) and future.

It is when we describe the intended/desired future is what is called "prescriptive" language.

"I want a cup of coffee" describes what the future ought to be. Declarative.
"Bring me a cup of coffee" describes how to arrive at desired future. Imperative.

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=497346 time=1613714167 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=497194 time=1613651811 user_id=15238]
Language of always descriptive of experience. Our experience is also the basis for morality. Language can account for anything we've experienced to the extent that experience is shared by others. Remixing shared experiences of individual attributes into a new thing (ie unicorn) is allowed.
[/quote]
No. You are speaking about "experienced". That's past tense.

Language is descriptive, but it can describe the past, present (if there's such a thing) and future.

It is when we describe the intended/desired future is what is called "prescriptive" language.

"I want a cup of coffee" describes what the future ought to be. Declarative.
"Bring me a cup of coffee" describes how to arrive at desired future. Imperative.
[/quote]

"I would like the future to be x." is also descriptive of the present and the terms used to do so are still from past experience.

[Skepdick]

"I would like the future to be x." is also descriptive of the present and the terms used to do so are still from past experience.

Yeah, but it describes a relation.

My mental state in relation to the future.

And especially in the world of invention you'll end up inventing new words to speak about future experiences that aren't like past experiences.

Explain an airplane in a world that hasn't seen any. A flying car?

Is a reason they are called visionaries. They can imagine the experience without having experienced it.

[FlashDangerpants]

.....

Can I take it from your evasion that you don't know which sort of statement that P2 was either?