Philosophy Now Forum

Basically the issue of No-IS-from-Ought [NOFI] in moral terms arise from the principle of duality, i.e.
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.

Re Morality & Ethics, the is-ought problem [NOFI] is deemed not to be reconciliable by the linguistic and analytics philosophers who are very short-sighted on the nature of reality.

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?

Y'all won't like this but i've already explored this concept almost exhaustively: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ It's the kernel of metaphysics.

It doesn't need to be as complicated as the OP here makes it out.

Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 5:44 pm Y'all won't like this but i've already explored this concept almost exhaustively: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/ It's the kernel of metaphysics.

It doesn't need to be as complicated as the OP here makes it out.

Your link is merely a listing of opposites with any exposition and explanation of the complementariness of the opposites.
The Yin-Yang principles are more to just opposites.

What are the issues you have with what is explored in the OP?

One critical principle of the Yin-Yang is,
yin has the potential to be yang and vice versa, because yin is inherently in yang.
Note the little dot of yang within the large segment of yin.
As such this principle can be applied to resolve the Is-Ought dichotomy or any dichotomy within reality.

There are other critical principles of the Yin-Yang that need to be understood whereby one can transposed such understandings to understand the nature reality.

>Your link is merely a listing of opposites with any exposition and explanation of the complementariness of the opposites.
The Yin-Yang principles are more to just opposites.

Not only; they're opposites or related concepts with the same distinction, between the hidden (which is what the word Yin means) "actuality" and the accessible "reality".

>What are the issues you have with what is explored in the OP?

Only the complexity of your formula.

>One critical principle of the Yin-Yang is,
yin has the potential to be yang and vice versa, because yin is inherently in yang.
Note the little dot of yang within the large segment of yin.
As such this principle can be applied to resolve the Is-Ought dichotomy or any dichotomy within reality.

I see that as best represented by the ideas of theorizing and manifesting.

>There are other critical principles of the Yin-Yang that need to be understood whereby one can transposed such understandings to understand the nature reality.

We mustn't stretch that analogy too far. That Yin/Yang is rooted in a fundamental correct understanding of metaphysics doesn't imply or entail any part of the lore built up around it being meaningful.

This Yin and Yang nonsense seems to be a good excuse for people who don't want to put effort into properly resolving dichotomies. Using your brain a lot can take time, and can also burn a lot of calories, who wants that?

Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Dec 15, 2020 1:53 pm >Your link is merely a listing of opposites with any exposition and explanation of the complementariness of the opposites.
The Yin-Yang principles are more to just opposites.

Not only; they're opposites or related concepts with the same distinction, between the hidden (which is what the word Yin means) "actuality" and the accessible "reality".

There is no inherent meaning to Yin or Yang, focus is on dualism and complementariness, note,

• In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng, lit. "dark-bright", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world,
  and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another .
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

>What are the issues you have with what is explored in the OP?

Only the complexity of your formula.

I am merely applying the basic concepts bolded above to a very contentious 'is-ought' distinction in the most effective and comprehensible manner.

I have presented a long list of arguments [>6] to explain "ought" is possible from "is" but they are literally complicated.

>One critical principle of the Yin-Yang is,
yin has the potential to be yang and vice versa, because yin is inherently in yang.
Note the little dot of yang within the large segment of yin.
As such this principle can be applied to resolve the Is-Ought dichotomy or any dichotomy within reality.

I see that as best represented by the ideas of theorizing and manifesting.

Your above merely claim there are opposites which is very plain and inherent in reality -all-there-is.
The above opposites cannot be reconciled unless we impute the principles of yin-in-yang and vice-versa.

>There are other critical principles of the Yin-Yang that need to be understood whereby one can transposed such understandings to understand the nature reality.

We mustn't stretch that analogy too far. That Yin/Yang is rooted in a fundamental correct understanding of metaphysics doesn't imply or entail any part of the lore built up around it being meaningful.

I have not referred to any lore.
You are the one who did above, i.e. the 'hidden' yin [lit in the shade?]. In principle the 'yang' can also be 'hidden' i.e. inherent in the yin.

That Yin/Yang is rooted in a fundamental correct understanding of reality means we can use its principles to understand the more complex issues of reality.
E.g. Bohr relied upon the complementarity principles to manage the particle-wave dichotomy in the early stages of QM.
While Bohr did not mention the Yin-Yang in his papers, thus the skeptics, I believe he must have come across it somewhere and sometime, to the extent he agree to put the Tao symbol in his coat of arms.
Neils Bohr, Complementary & Yin-Yang
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31203