Integrity: The Virtues Of The Moral Individual

[BaalChatzaf]

44 minutes ago, regi said:

Does that mean that life is not a fact? Or do your regard life to be a particular?

Randy

My life is a fact and I assume your life is a fact.  Life is  particular not general. 

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

You can get all the oughts you want from ises. Because of such you ought to do X or Y and maybe Z.

Facts are first hard core metaphysical. Then you can abstract facts off that base and still there are no oughts. Oughts are hard core epistemological. The epistemological meets the metaphysical in the human mind which then tries to determine best choice of action. Everything cognitive in the human mind belongs in the tentative category. The kicker is the human mind is an integrated metaphysical-epistemological whole. In that whole, in that matrix, you get the best ought from your best understanding of is as possible--or you ought to. Your survival and happiness are at stake via critical thinking and the right--it ought to be right--moral philosophy you can create, understand, deal with, observe, know, want, etc. So to say no ought from is is possible is also to say no is is possible--that is knowable. The kid stubs his toe. "Owe!" The kid thinks, "I better (ought to) walk more carefully."

--Brant

Dancing with myself . . .

[regi]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

My life is a fact and I assume your life is a fact.  Life is  particular not general. 

What is a metaphysical fact? Can you name one that has no attributes. Is any existent independent of its attributes? Are not attributes metaphysical facts? Is not life an attribute of all organisms? Life does not exist independently of any organism, but no organism exists idependently of life. If organisms are facts, their life is a fact. Or do  you deny the term, "organisms," identifies a class of existents?

Randy

 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, regi said:

 Life does not exist independently of any organism, but no organism exists idependently of life.

The first part of the sentence is tentatively true. That's the nature of knowledge. The second is true because the definitions of "organism" and "life" enough match up.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, regi said:

What is a metaphysical fact? Can you name one that has no attributes. Is any existent independent of its attributes? Are not attributes metaphysical facts? Is not life an attribute of all organisms? Life does not exist independently of any organism, but no organism exists idependently of life. If organisms are facts, their life is a fact. Or do  you deny the term, "organisms," identifies a class of existents?

Randy

 

I have no idea what "metaphysical fact"  means.  A fact is a state of the cosmos.  A fact is  what is. "fact"  should not be confused with "factual statements"  or "statement(s) of fact"  A sentence which states a fact refers to some fact in the cosmos.  The word is not the thing.  The map is not the territory.  The portrait is not the subject. 

[anthony]

19 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

is statement do not logically imply ought statements.   An is statement is in the modality True/False.  An ought statement is in the modality Required/Forbidden/Optional  They are statements of different types (modes)  and cannot be connected by if-then. 

What is, is. That alone validates existence and identity. Your syllogistic "statements" distance one from reality, in my view.

Who says what's "required/forbidden/optional", anyway?? Does one know these, without being told or ordered? There's only the hypothetical imperative (in O'ism -and in reality): man has free will [is], rationality [is], autonomy [is] and he ought to act according to those -- if -- he wishes to survive and live a 'good' fulfilling life. If not, nothing and nobody forces him. 

Alternatively one is mired, as you, in an ethical-command mode which several philosophers (and religions) left behind them, and saddled mankind with. 

btw, a revealing quote I saw recently. "Empirical knowledge is the agreement in reports of repeated observations made by two or more persons. Rational knowledge is the agreement in results of problem solving by two or more persons". [I Kant]

Truth by numbers, where have I seen that...?

Categorical-commanding in ethics, and consensual-collectivist in acquiring knowledge, apparently he placed little confidence in an individual and an independent mind.

[regi]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:13 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I have no idea what "metaphysical fact"  means.  A fact is a state of the cosmos.  A fact is  what is. "fact"  should not be confused with "factual statements"  or "statement(s) of fact"  A sentence which states a fact refers to some fact in the cosmos.  The word is not the thing.  The map is not the territory.  The portrait is not the subject. 

By, "metaphysical," I mean, "that which is," independently of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of it. The metaphysical is reality and everything that is has a specific nature which is its identity. My question was, how is any fact (entity, action, or relationship) identified without specifying its attributes or characteristics. Simply put, how is a specific "fact" identified? Of course a word is, "not the thing," a word is what "identifies" the thing.

Randy

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, regi said:

By, "metaphysical," I mean, "that which is," independently of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of it. The metaphysical is reality and everything that is has a specific nature which is its identity. My question was, how is any fact (entity, action, or relationship) identified without specifying its attributes or characteristics. Simply put, how is a specific "fact" identified? Of course a word is, "not the thing," a word is what "identifies" the thing.

Randy

Well, a fact exists in a sea of other facts so render out those facts. ID the things that specify those other facts, not the fact you want to ID.

--Brant

don't ask for examples; I don't have any off hand

[regi]

6 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Well, a fact exists in a sea of other facts so render out those facts. ID the things that specify those other facts, not the fact you want to ID.

--Brant

don't ask for examples; I don't have any off hand

You can "ID" other facts, but "not the fact you want to ID." If you can ID other facts, why can't you ID the one you are interested in?

Randy

[Brant Gaede]

8 minutes ago, regi said:

You can "ID" other facts, but "not the fact you want to ID." If you can ID other facts, why can't you ID the one you are interested in?

Randy

It would be a lot of work and discovery. Maybe a dead end.

My suggestion was merely an invite to approach this "problem" from another angle.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, regi said:

By, "metaphysical," I mean, "that which is," independently of anyone's consciousness or knowledge of it. The metaphysical is reality and everything that is has a specific nature which is its identity. My question was, how is any fact (entity, action, or relationship) identified without specifying its attributes or characteristics. Simply put, how is a specific "fact" identified? Of course a word is, "not the thing," a word is what "identifies" the thing.

Randy

People sometimes refer to sentences that assert facts   as facts.  A sentence that asserts fact a   is not the fact itself. 
"

[Peter]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 4:13 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

I have no idea what "metaphysical fact"  means.  A fact is a state of the cosmos.  A fact is  what is. "fact"  should not be confused with "factual statements"  or "statement(s) of fact"  A sentence which states a fact refers to some fact in the cosmos.  The word is not the thing.  The map is not the territory.  The portrait is not the subject. 

Remember the traveling salesman in “The Wizard of Oz” who later becomes Oz? He tried to con Dorothy with philosophical clap trap.

 

Interesting old letter, though I think I recently plastered Ghs’s on OL.

Peter

 

From: PinkCrash7 To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Erring like an animal (was "thinking like an animal - Merlin) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 20:34:32 EST

What reason do you have to believe that a dog could mistake the identical twin of its owner for the owner himself?  Dogs have certain perceptual abilities far superior to what humans possess -- particularly the senses of hearing and smell -- and also seem to be very attuned to the emotions and attitudes of human beings.  I have a hard time believing that a dog would make such a mistake as what you suggest.  (This has nothing to do with the argument one way or the other, but it bothers me when questionable examples are given in support of a particular argument.  If the given example is not realistic, then it is of no worth in making a point.)

Debbie

 

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: George failing to think Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 17:10:35 -0600

I wrote: "All we [he and Merlin] said was that ducks can perceive similarities. This is entirely consistent with Rand's epistemology."

 

Ellen Moore replied: "No, it's not true, nor is it consistent with Rand's epistemology. Ducks cannot *perceive* 'similarities' because "similarity reduces to measurement omission.... Too bad George will not study and understand what Rand wrote."

For those who wish to see what Rand actually had to say about this subject, see her remarks in the "Appendix" to ITOE, pp. 139 ff. Under the section titled" Similarity and Measurement Omission," Rand refers to the "metaphysical base of similarity *and* the fact that it is GRASPED PERCEPTUALLY." Rand goes on to say that "similarity is PERCEPTUALLY GIVEN, but the UNDERSTANDING of what similarity MEANS has to be arrived at philosophically." Lastly, Rand says that "similarity, WHEN ANALYZED, amounts to: measurements omitted."

See the rest of this discussion as well, as when Rand replies "That's right" to Prof.. B's observation that a child "PERCEIVES similarities AND differences DIRECTLY." [All the above caps are mine]

What part of phrases like "grasped perceptually," "perceptually given," and "when analyzed," does Ellen Moore not understand? I can't imagine how Rand could be any more clear than this. I should have known better than to involve myself in discussing yet another one of Ellen Moore's absurd Talmudic interpretations of Ayn Rand. I momentarily forgot  that Ellen's problems go far beyond failing to distinguish concepts from their referents. Far more serious is the fact that this  dope cannot understand simple English prose.

Ghs