The Big Picture

[BaalChatzaf]

I have just finished the book "The Big Picture"  which is an essay on "poetic naturalism",  a way of  integrating scientific naturalism with our understanding of the world  at human scale.

I would like to share  the last sentence from chapter 46 of the book with you:

"We should understand that our desire for an objective grounding of morality creates a cognitive bias and (we) should compensate by being especially skeptical of such claims in that direction"

In a word we cannot get Ought from Is.

Bottom line: The is no objective principle that will move us from Is   to Ought.   The only logical constraint we can put on  Ought is that Ought does not require the impossible...

[Brant Gaede]

On 10/21/2016 at 8:52 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I have just finished the book "The Big Picture"  which is an essay on "poetic naturalism",  a way of  integrating scientific naturalism with our understanding of the world  at human scale.

I would like to share  the last sentence from chapter 46 of the book with you:

"We should understand that our desire for an objective grounding of morality creates a cognitive bias and (we) should compensate by being especially skeptical of such claims in that direction"

In a word we cannot get Ought from Is.

Bottom line: The is no objective principle that will move us from Is   to Ought.   The only logical constraint we can put on  Ought is that Ought does not require the impossible...

No, no, no. You start with "ought" then go find the "is."

Ought the Jews be gassed to death? (Ought they not?)

--Brant

good luck with supporting that; it can't be done with any humanity default--the "is"--(hence Nazi Superman)

by dehumanizing the Jews the Nazis dehumanized themselves--such easy villains (so beloved by Hollywood)

Rand's Superman was the wrong man for a counter to Nazi Superman or Soviet (worker) Man

Top-Downerism is for ideas, not people save for professional competence

Francisco and John should have had a terrible fight over Dagny, but that's a different novel*

*see Rand-Branden, lies and truth

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

No, no, no. You start with "ought" then go find the "is."

Ought the Jews be gassed to death? (Ought they not?)

--Brant

good luck with supporting that; it can't be done with any humanity default--the "is"--(hence Nazi Superman)

by dehumanizing the Jews the Nazis dehumanized themselves--such easy villains (so beloved by Hollywood)

Rand's Superman was the wrong man for a counter to Nazi Superman or Soviet (worker) Man

Top-Downerism is for ideas, not people save for professional competence

Francisco and John should have had a terrible fight over Dagny, but that's a different novel*

*see Rand-Branden, lies and truth

Not funny...

[Brant Gaede]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not funny...

I tried to be funny?

No. You aren't capable of serious thinking and ratiocination. I used the most horrible example I could imagine. I give up. Nothing works.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

I tried to be funny?

No. You aren't capable of serious thinking and ratiocination. I used the most horrible example I could imagine. I give up. Nothing works.

--Brant

I am far more capable of serious thinking than you.  Can you prove that Tyckonoff Compactness theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?  I can. 

I live on facts and logic.  Is that serious enough for you? 

[Brant Gaede]

On 4/6/2017 at 7:59 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I am far more capable of serious thinking than you.  Can you prove that Tyckonoff Compactness theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?  I can. 

I live on facts and logic.  Is that serious enough for you? 

Then you are simply on the wrong forum. This is a philosophy forum.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Then you are simply on the wrong forum. This is a philosophy forum.

--Brant

Logic is a branch of philosophy.  I do logic. 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Logic is a branch of philosophy.  I do logic. 

Proving X is equivalent of Y is essentially circular unless you then explain the significance outside or beyond the propositions.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Proving X is equivalent of Y is essentially circular unless you then explain the significance outside or beyond the propositions.

--Brant

X implies Y and Y implies X.    As happens frequently, you write nonsense. 

[anthony]

On 2016/10/21 at 5:52 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

I have just finished the book "The Big Picture"  which is an essay on "poetic naturalism",  a way of  integrating scientific naturalism with our understanding of the world  at human scale.

I would like to share  the last sentence from chapter 46 of the book with you:

"We should understand that our desire for an objective grounding of morality creates a cognitive bias and (we) should compensate by being especially skeptical of such claims in that direction"

In a word we cannot get Ought from Is.

Bottom line: The is no objective principle that will move us from Is   to Ought.   The only logical constraint we can put on  Ought is that Ought does not require the impossible...

I must break it to you, oh Logic Maestro, that the corollary of Is--Ought, is: "Is--Ought Not".

Remember that topic, How do you know murder is wrong? Derived from facts of reality of man's life, nature and value, is how a rational person knows he "ought not" commit murder.. For we lesser logicians, that suffices to "move us from Is to Ought".

(Your logic could only come up with some superficial junk about murder being unlawful).

That puts paid to the author's assertion> "...being especially skeptical" [about] "an objective grounding of morality..."

(And to "naturalism", for that matter).

 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

X implies Y and Y implies X.    As happens frequently, you write nonsense. 

Bad drives out good.

--Brant

I'm too young for the old folks' home and you stink up the joint too boot