Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:29 pm There's no justification necessary. It's just a matter of whether we're talking about one thing or another.

You are using "we" normatively.

When did anybody else appoint you to speak on their behalf?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:29 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:29 pm There's no justification necessary. It's just a matter of whether we're talking about one thing or another.

You are using "we" normatively.

No, I'm not. I'm using it descriptively. There's zero implication that you should be doing what other people are doing.

When did anybody else appoint you to speak on their behalf?

It's simply possible to be aware of statistical commonalities.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:01 pm No, I'm not. I'm using it descriptively. There's zero implication that you should be doing what other people are doing.

Then why are you framing the topic the way other people are framing it?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:01 pm It's simply possible to be aware of statistical commonalities.

Awareness is one thing. Practicing the commonality yourself - that's agreement.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:02 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:01 pm No, I'm not. I'm using it descriptively. There's zero implication that you should be doing what other people are doing.

Then why are you framing the topic the way other people are framing it?

Because it's an interesting topic in my opinion.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:01 pm It's simply possible to be aware of statistical commonalities.

Awareness is one thing. Practicing the commonality yourself - that's agreement.

Agreement has nothing to do with normatives. Normatives are prescriptions.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:04 pm Agreement has nothing to do with normatives. Normatives are prescriptions.

You've worked your ass off to prescribe to me how to interpret/understand the is-ought gap.

I reject your norm.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:06 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:04 pm Agreement has nothing to do with normatives. Normatives are prescriptions.

You've worked your ass off to prescribe to me how to interpret/understand the is-ought gap.

It's not a prescription.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:06 pm It's not a prescription.

Then why does it upset you that I refuse to learn/accept/understand the social norm you are shoving down my throat?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:08 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:06 pm It's not a prescription.

Then why does it upset you that I refuse to learn/accept/understand the social norm you are shoving down my throat?

It doesn't. You're giving yourself way too much credit.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:12 pm It doesn't. You're giving yourself way too much credit.

I see.

So of all possible conceptions of the is-ought gap, why do you defend this particular one?

Seeming as you don't think it's normative.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:16 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:12 pm It doesn't. You're giving yourself way too much credit.

I see.

So of all possible conceptions of the is-ought gap, why do you defend this particular one?

Seeming as you don't think it's normative.

It's not a defense of it. It's just a fact that it's what most philosophers are talking about, it's an issue with people on both sides of a dispute, and I find it interesting.

We can talk about another topic instead but it's another topic.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:18 pm It's not a defense of it. It's just a fact that it's what most philosophers are talking about, it's an issue with people on both sides of a dispute, and I find it interesting.

OK, but why that particular interpretation?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:18 pm We can talk about another topic instead but it's another topic.

It's not another topic.

It's the same topic. Interpreted differently.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:19 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:18 pm It's not a defense of it. It's just a fact that it's what most philosophers are talking about, it's an issue with people on both sides of a dispute, and I find it interesting.

OK, but why that particular interpretation?

It was just an issue that came up historically and it was put in those terms. Lots of other people continued to talk about it in those terms.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:18 pm We can talk about another topic instead but it's another topic.

It's not another topic.

Yeah, it is. We wouldn't be talking about the same issue. Using the same words for a different issue doesn't make it the same topic.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:27 pm Yeah, it is. We wouldn't be talking about the same issue. Using the same words for a different issue doesn't make it the same topic.

Well, you'd first have to justify what makes it "the same issue"...

Seeming as the discussions are occurring at different spatio-temporal locations.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:30 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:27 pm Yeah, it is. We wouldn't be talking about the same issue. Using the same words for a different issue doesn't make it the same topic.

Well, you'd first have to justify what makes it "the same issue"...

Seeming as the discussions are occurring at different spatio-temporal locations.

Then why are you arguing it would be the same issue?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 6:30 pm Then why are you arguing it would be the same issue?

I was giving you rope to hand yourself with.