Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:30 pm**

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:17 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:51 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:09 pm It's not pretentious if it's accurate
You totally licked the whipped cream of knowledge from wisdom's quivering earhole there.
I don't recognise what you're doing right now but it's not philosophy.

Said Advocte, casually deconstructing the loaf of confusion, only to put it back together with the delicious cheesy goodness of logic and mayonnaise of necessity. Look upon the sandwich of knowingness he has gifted us.

Posted: **Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:56 pm**

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:09 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:08 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:46 pm

Great argument. I'm sold.

Would you care to point out what about it is pretentious and why it's not factually accurate?
It doesn't seem worth the effort mate. If you can't see what is pretentious about "the glue of logical necessity", let alone "i've independently derived almost everything i've ever thought" there's not much to be done for you. Your true home is here https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

Beyond that, what's really the point of doing any more of this? You didn't derive an ought from an is, you did the same thing that every other pissant who tries this argument does, you got an ought plus an optional is and tried to derive another ought from that pairing. Even Verbose Octothorp seems to have noticed that doesn't work now, and he is as thick as shit.
It's not pretentious if it's accurate (attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.), nor if i'm not attempting to impress, which i'm not, but you don't seem to care about that stuff. Most non-academic philosophers have independently derived most of what they've thought, i'd say. Nothing pretentious there, and again you're pretending stating factual truth can be pretentious. It just ain't so. And i legitimately don't care what you think so that part just ain't so either.

Personal attacks are the lowest form of argument, in case you weren't aware, which seems compatible with everything else i know about you.

I never claimed i derived an ought from an is. I claimed All OUGHTs can Only be derived from an IS. That's not the same thing as giving an example. All examples will work, as is obvious from the actual contention.

Mr Pants, You are correct. All oughts are derived from an IS. Let's say that I figure that I ought to torture myself for the god Marpuk because it is written that if I do so, I get to spend eternity with many virgins, et al. I may be wrong about Marpuk and the belief may be irrational, but I am still deriving an ought from a "believed" IS.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 12:24 am**

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:56 pm Mr Pants, You are correct. All oughts are derived from an IS. Let's say that I figure that I ought to torture myself for the god Marpuk because it is written that if I do so, I get to spend eternity with many virgins, et al. I may be wrong about Marpuk and the belief may be irrational, but I am still deriving an ought from a "believed" IS.

You aren't deriving from an is, nor even a believed "IS" that actually is not. You are just ignoring the oughts from which you are actually deriving.

If you believe that there is an afterlife, and you believe that if you eat nothing but asparagus in this life you get to spend it with 700 ladyboys and a dildo with 701 spinning things on the end, that information does not include anything on which to base your ought. There is an evaluative step such as "I want to have my rectum swizzled for eternity". Or indeed you may be boring and not want your starfish punctured at all.

Your evaluation is informed, not by facts of the universe, not by something external, and most importantly, not by anything that can be discovered by examining laws of science to be correct or otherwise ill-informed. In other words, it's not objective at all, not objectively right, not objectively wrong. It's entirely up to you whether you want the pervert afterlife where your bung hole gets battered down like a medieval castle door when Genghis Khan is in town. I think you'll go for it, you seem very spunky.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:29 am**

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 4:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 10:29 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:53 pm The statement that OUGHTs cannot be derived from ISes is incorrect.
If we are discussing within classical plain logic and common ordinary language, an 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is' deductively, e.g.

logically it should be
1. PI Is - Descriptive
2. P2 Is - Descriptive
3. C2 Is - Descriptive
thus the following is wrong.

1. PI Is - Descriptive
2. P2 Is - Descriptive
3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
The above conclusion is false because there are no ought in the premises. The 'ought' cannot appear in the conclusion out of the blue.

But Moral language is very specific to morality and is not plain ordinary language.
Searle had demonstrated an 'ought' can be derived from 'is' when additional premises involving 'speech acts' and constitutional facts are used, thus;

1. PI Is - Descriptive
2. P2 Is - Descriptive
3. P3 Is- Ought [constitutional]
3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive
See this thread;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

According to many philosophers the IS-OUGHT distinction is a trivial [childish] issue which is limited when we agree and confine ourselves to classical logic of deduction.

But note, the most credible truths, facts and knowledge is from Science which do not give a damn f... for the rules of deduction but rather rely on induction and observations and obviously relying on the highest grade of objectivity and justifications of its results which has the highest utility potentials to humanity.

Also it is so common and obvious that our laws are deriving 'ought_s' from 'is_es' in reality and imposed that upon the respective citizens regardless of deductive logic.

Currently moral philosophers has moved away from the archaic and relatively childish is-ought, fact-value dichotomy to a more empirical based science-liked deliberation on morality that involve a multi-disciplinary approach.
OUGHTs are always contingent on what the desired outcome is. IF/THEN. It cannot be otherwise because prescriptive OUGHTs from elsewhere cannot exist. Because ISes can ONLY come from OUGHTs, any argument to the contrary is necessarily invalid.

Not sure of your point.
It is obvious 'OUGHTs are always contingent on what the desired outcome is.'

My point is, if we are dealing with classical logic then we ought to follow the rules of classical logic.
The original challenge of the is-ought problem is that it has to confine to the rules of logic.

Yes, in an IF/THEN situation, the ought will have to follow from the if 'is' condition.

This is what Searle did by using the IF/THEN elements to derive 'ought' from 'is', i.e. [repeat]

1. PI Is - Descriptive
2. P2 Is - Descriptive
3. P3 Is- [IF/THEN] Ought [constitutional]
3. C2 Ought - Prescriptive

See this thread;
How to Derive "Ought" From "Is" J. Searle
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29824

Searle used the example of a promise, i.e.
IF a promise is declared [in action] by a person [is] , THEN, he OUGHT to fulfill his promise because that is the nature of what a promise is.

Searle relied on the Modus Ponen in the above, thus complied with the rules of logic.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:39 am**

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:17 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:51 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:09 pm It's not pretentious if it's accurate
You totally licked the whipped cream of knowledge from wisdom's quivering earhole there.
I don't recognise what you're doing right now but it's not philosophy.

It is advisable not to start any discussion with that DangerPantFlasher at all, he is absolutely mentally sick!

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:39 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:17 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:51 pm
You totally licked the whipped cream of knowledge from wisdom's quivering earhole there.
I don't recognise what you're doing right now but it's not philosophy.
It is advisable not to start any discussion with DangerPantFlasher at all, he is absolutely mentally sick!

I'm not convinced. Many people overestimate the power of naked skepticism, especially the ones on the right track.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:01 am**

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am .....

Another approach to resolve the is-ought problem is to discuss it within the Philosophical Realist versus Philosophical anti-Realist distinction.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki

In the case of Philosophical Realism, what-is [IS] is ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Thus when a Philosophical Realist argue on the is-ought problem his model of logic is as follows;

1. P1 IS = dualistic independent of humans
2. P2 IS = dualistic independent of humans
3. C1 IS = dualistic independent of humans

Because "is" to them is independent from human and their ought-ness, there is no room for any 'ought' to be derived from 'is'.

On the other hand, Philosophical Anti-Realism hold the view that reality, i.e. what-is [IS] is somewhat entangled with human conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Thus the model of logic for the Philosophical anti-realist is such:

1. P1 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation
2. P2 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation
3. C1 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation

Because humans are entangled with 'is' and are part and parcel of 'is' all we need to do is to introduce an IF/THEN premise and we can derive 'ought' from 'is'.

The philosophical realist cannot see the logic of the above because they are trapped within their rigid paradigm, thus stuck with confirmation bias and dogmatism. They are like the person who did not and cannot see the 500 pound gorilla right in front of them.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:06 pm**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 4:01 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am .....
Another approach to resolve the is-ought problem is to discuss it within the Philosophical Realist versus Philosophical anti-Realist distinction.

In metaphysics, [Philosophical] Realism about a given object is the view that this object exists in reality independently of our conceptual scheme. In philosophical terms, these objects are ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
-wiki
In the case of Philosophical Realism, what-is [IS] is ontologically independent of someone's conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.

Thus when a Philosophical Realist argue on the is-ought problem his model of logic is as follows;

1. P1 IS = dualistic independent of humans
2. P2 IS = dualistic independent of humans
3. C1 IS = dualistic independent of humans
Because "is" to them is independent from human and their ought-ness, there is no room for any 'ought' to be derived from 'is'.

On the other hand, Philosophical Anti-Realism hold the view that reality, i.e. what-is [IS] is somewhat entangled with human conceptual scheme, perceptions, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc.
Thus the model of logic for the Philosophical anti-realist is such:

1. P1 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation
2. P2 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation
3. C1 IS = entangled with humans and their oughts i.e. obligation
Because humans are entangled with 'is' and are part and parcel of 'is' all we need to do is to introduce an IF/THEN premise and we can derive 'ought' from 'is'.

The philosophical realist cannot see the logic of the above because they are trapped within their rigid paradigm, thus stuck with confirmation bias and dogmatism. They are like the person who did not and cannot see the 500 pound gorilla right in front of them.

I try to avoid academics (both the subjects and the people) since they always(?) and up bogged down in irrelevancies. My version of compatiblism, which probably has some word i'm not familiar with, is that everything on the non-material side exists in the substrate of the material and is merely an advanced metaphor to make useful things out of that undifferentiated stuff in Actuality. Both are equally real and have material effects although only the material side is materially measurable/verifiable without translation.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:28 pm**

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:39 am
Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:17 pm
I don't recognise what you're doing right now but it's not philosophy.
It is advisable not to start any discussion with DangerPantFlasher at all, he is absolutely mentally sick!
I'm not convinced. Many people overestimate the power of naked skepticism, especially the ones on the right track.

I'm not a naked skeptic at all. Your argument is unworkable. If you are moderately rational, it should be possible to explain why to you. But if your defensive reaction is self-indulgent waffle about how infallible your work is because it is contructed with the glue of logical necessity then you are going to waste your life pursuing shit arguments that can be dismissed with a single sentence, which is the fate Vestigual Aqualung as chosen.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:28 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:39 am
It is advisable not to start any discussion with DangerPantFlasher at all, he is absolutely mentally sick!
I'm not convinced. Many people overestimate the power of naked skepticism, especially the ones on the right track.
I'm not a naked skeptic at all. Your argument is unworkable. If you are moderately rational, it should be possible to explain why to you. But if your defensive reaction is self-indulgent waffle about how infallible your work is because it is contructed with the glue of logical necessity then you are going to waste your life pursuing shit arguments that can be dismissed with a single sentence, which is the fate Vestigual Aqualung as chosen.

My argument is logically irrefutable so this is what you're going to try next? GTFO.

OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence. If they're not necessary toward some desired end, they're not SHOULDs, they're only COULDs. You OUGHT to do what you SHOULD do. Those two concepts are synonymous. I don't know what else to tell you - logic is absolute.

Posted: **Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:52 pm**

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:28 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am

I'm not convinced. Many people overestimate the power of naked skepticism, especially the ones on the right track.
I'm not a naked skeptic at all. Your argument is unworkable. If you are moderately rational, it should be possible to explain why to you. But if your defensive reaction is self-indulgent waffle about how infallible your work is because it is contructed with the glue of logical necessity then you are going to waste your life pursuing shit arguments that can be dismissed with a single sentence, which is the fate Vestigual Aqualung as chosen.
My argument is logically irrefutable so this is what you're going to try next? GTFO.

You need to calm down, think rationally, and take shit less personally. Also, avoid words like "irrefutable" until you have a better grasp of when to use them.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence. If they're not necessary toward some desired end, they're not SHOULDs, they're only COULDs. You OUGHT to do what you SHOULD do. Those two concepts are synonymous. I don't know what else to tell you - logic is absolute.

Your irrefutable argument is meandering, which is quite an achievement given its brevity. Please explain just the first sentence: "OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence." Show us how an ought actually arises. Your first attempt failed because it was derived from an ought. But I am sure you can do better next time what with all that irrefutable AND absolute logic you are weilding.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 1:28 pm**

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:52 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:28 pm
I'm not a naked skeptic at all. Your argument is unworkable. If you are moderately rational, it should be possible to explain why to you. But if your defensive reaction is self-indulgent waffle about how infallible your work is because it is contructed with the glue of logical necessity then you are going to waste your life pursuing shit arguments that can be dismissed with a single sentence, which is the fate Vestigual Aqualung as chosen.
My argument is logically irrefutable so this is what you're going to try next? GTFO.
You need to calm down, think rationally, and take shit less personally. Also, avoid words like "irrefutable" until you have a better grasp of when to use them.

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence. If they're not necessary toward some desired end, they're not SHOULDs, they're only COULDs. You OUGHT to do what you SHOULD do. Those two concepts are synonymous. I don't know what else to tell you - logic is absolute.
Your irrefutable argument is meandering, which is quite an achievement given its brevity. Please explain just the first sentence: "OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence." Show us how an ought actually arises. Your first attempt failed because it was derived from an ought. But I am sure you can do better next time what with all that irrefutable AND absolute logic you are weilding.

I understand the intention of the OP and understand the contention to it.
I see people started talking past one another (due to base enmity).

There is a practical necessity for 'is' to be such to derive any valid 'ought'.
It is like the problem of "I think, therefor I am" being absurd (ie. upside-down).
It is not because one thinks, one is. It is because one is, one may think.
"I think because I am" is upright, just as "I ought... because... is..."
would be. It is of the same practical necessity. The problem is rather related
to the capacity to consciously acknowledge what is, as-is.

The integrity of any 'ought' will reflect some capacity to acknowledge what 'is' as-is.
This underlies the presence of a real/imaginary dichotomy (ie. duality) that reflects
in/as so-called good/evil (to adopt the "believers'" terminology) or the real/imaginary
numbers as they relate radius (rational, terminating) to circumference (irrational, non-terminating).

Acknowledgement of what really 'is' 'ought' to be
absent any/all "belief"-based ignorance(s) 'not necessarily true'
because that which 'is' is fundamentally true anyways (regardless of any/all substance of "belief").
This 'ought' is thus of the same necessity. That is: acknowledging what really 'is' implies no belief-based ignorance(s) distorting perception.
This is why (only) "belief" has the capacity to conflate/confuse, such to "believe" what is, is not and/or what is not, is.

Unfortunately, neither philosophy nor science (presently) has the capacity to consciously acknowledge
that knowledge and belief are antithetical: one is always at the expense of the other such
that consciously knowing all: not to believe entails endlessly approaching all-knowing, god-or-no-god.
Such an acknowledgement undermines ideological infrastructures such as "believer vs. unbeliever" viz. "us vs. them"
that dominate the psychology of religious "believers" who are subject to (and of) "believing" the opposite of what is true,
such as in division/separation from (of) one whole, which is what the planet actually is.

Humanity should start with consciously acknowledging what is, before
moving onto deriving anything from it, be it ought and/or ought not. This kind
of laboring over such a debate is naught but a distraction from the real problem(s).
It is not about the derivable 'ought', it is about being able to consciously see
and experience what really is without any limiting/petty distortion(s).
This includes arguing whether it is even possible to derive an ought from an is
without even having the capacity to see what is as-is in the first place. It is
silly and a real waste of time.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:19 pm**

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:38 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:28 pm
Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:42 am I'm not convinced. Many people overestimate the power of naked skepticism, especially the ones on the right track.
I'm not a naked skeptic at all. Your argument is unworkable. If you are moderately rational, it should be possible to explain why to you. But if your defensive reaction is self-indulgent waffle about how infallible your work is because it is contructed with the glue of logical necessity then you are going to waste your life pursuing shit arguments that can be dismissed with a single sentence, which is the fate Vestigual Aqualung as chosen.
It seems you're responding to my Defense of you with a personal attack on my logic. That must be awfully counter-productive. I was saying, although i disagree with the quantity and quality of your skepticism, it is nevertheless a mark of someone studying philosophy and should be respected to the extent it isn't a mere complication.

As for my particular arguments, none of which is actually addressed here, only referenced, they are logically necessary and if you'd care to stop dismissing everything anyone says you could follow the train of thought to it's ultimate conclusion. Most philosophers who are good but not great are so because they fail to follow their thoughts to their logical conclusion, or to adapt their ideas if they have.

>You need to calm down, think rationally, and take shit less personally. Also, avoid words like "irrefutable" until you have a better grasp of when to use them.

As best i can tell, i take it personally when someone tries to talk about "my logic" instead of the points of logic i'm making. That's an ad-hominem attack, even if it doesn't include insult words. I used the word irrefutable because that's exactly what i meant. This isn't a point of fishing around about how to explain something. I am literally saying it is literally not possible to logically refute any point of The Whole Story; of which this is a part.

>Your irrefutable argument is meandering, which is quite an achievement given its brevity. Please explain just the first sentence: "OUGHTs ALL come from ISes because there is literally no other possible explanations for their existence." Show us how an ought actually arises. Your first attempt failed because it was derived from an ought. But I am sure you can do better next time what with all that irrefutable AND absolute logic you are weilding.

Many philosophers meander for a very good and practical reason - people are different. In order to get one's point across it is usually helpful to have a toolbox of phrasings and examples (much harder). A concept that is not clear in one sentence may become clear in the second with different words and a different emphasis. I don't intentionally meander though, so if you'll explain how brevity and meandering work together i'll see if i can decrease it. The post below, from Nothing explains it well as well, but i dare say meanders more than i did.

Asking for more explanation requires more meandering, btw.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:27 pm**

Let me know when you have an actual argument instead of the rumour of some hidden argument you aren't sharing for some reason.

Posted: **Sun Sep 06, 2020 2:50 pm**

>I understand the intention of the OP and understand the contention to it.
>I see people started talking past one another (due to base enmity).

The enmity is from other threads. But it's of a practical nature, at least as i see it. If you look through my posts, you'll find many examples of attacking meta-points and technicalities and almost none talking about the ideas themselves or the contention itself, or it's supporting evidence. In the first post <The Whole Story> where this is still happening, over and over i get comments which i answer by literally cutting and pasting part of the document the discussion was supposed to be about. The answers to their contentions was the starting point. <whooshing motion over head>

Now maybe that's just par for the course. This is the internet, after all, but being all trees, no forest is why philosophy is considered stalled by most people, useless by many. I would expect better here. If there can't be better here, then where? We're Doomed!

Some people need to learn to say "Accepting for the sake of argument..." to avoid the gazing into the regress. Actionable certainty is the point of knowledge. All knowledge, all understanding, all wisdom. Let's get to it.

>There is a practical necessity for 'is' to be such to derive any valid 'ought'.
It is like the problem of "I think, therefor I am" being absurd (ie. upside-down).
It is not because one thinks, one is. It is because one is, one may think.
"I think because I am" is upright, just as "I ought... because... is..."
would be. It is of the same practical necessity. The problem is rather related
to the capacity to consciously acknowledge what is, as-is.

Being (the capacity for anything at all to exist) is a prerequisite for thinking. The existence of thinking proves (that at least one thing exists) the existence of being. Being is self-proving. It's a semantic argument but it's absolute. That's just what the words mean.

If you want it from another perspective; Experience proves itself because that's what we call this thing we're experiencing. Thinking and being aren't necessarily different things in our context, though. You can tell The Story from an experiential context just as from a materialist one.

...and then after that i basically agree with you with a few blah blahs here and there. You went off-the-rails verbose though, brah.

Philosophy Now Forum

the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved

Re: the is/ought problem solved