Hume was an idiot

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@anon

If he’s not, he tries extraordinarily hard to look like one. He’s certainly not a pragmatist.

Well, now only Von can make himself look better.
I’ve played my cards. I have little left to say until i see something new.

[Daktoria]

@von Rivers

@Daktoria

Von doesn’t understand how just because a watch keeps time doesn’t tell us what a watch should be used to keep time for.

What time you set your watch for has nothing to do with what a watch is. If someone has a watch on the eastern seaboard, and someone else on the western, the fact that they set their times differently doesn’t mean that we’re not still talking about watches. A watch is something that keeps time, no matter what you keep time for----and therefore, a good watch is something that ought to keep time.

Ah, I see what your problem is.

You’re confusing the definition of “good” between the integrity of an object and proper usage of an object.

[Daktoria]

@statiktech

@Daktoria

Von doesn’t understand how just because a watch keeps time doesn’t tell us what a watch should be used to keep time for. For example, if a group of people were discussing what should a single watch keep time for among multiple options, Von wouldn’t have a way to suggest which option to pick.

Yes he would, and his suggestion would be based on what is. If the people in the group were a bunch of gym rats, he might suggest that they keep time to schedule workouts. If some of them are on a diet, he could suggest that they keep time to schedule their meals. Why would everyone in the group need to choose the same option? One watch can be used for many different purposes.

If everyone in the group were a bunch of gym rats, then there wouldn’t be multiple options to keep time for a single watch.

[von_Rivers]

anon,

@anon

Similarly, I noted recently that von Rivers claims there is a single “right action” in any given situation.

I have never said anything like that. In fact, I’ve said explicitly many times that there may be many solutions to any given problem, in any given situation.

Divorcing creative action from the moral realm in such a way leads to an impoverished, and even miserable existence. I really think so. I think this is an important topic. How would you feel if there was a single right action, right now.

Honestly, I really have no idea what you’re talking about. It sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said.

If he’s not, he tries extraordinarily hard to look like one. He’s certainly not a pragmatist.

I am very clearly a pragmatist. I’ve said so many times, and as far as I can tell, everything I’ve said is consistent with that. It’s been very clear that I think there is no essential distinction between prudence and morality. And that’s part in parcel of thinking there’s no essential distinction between ‘oughts’ and ‘is’. ‘Oughts’—that is, value judgements—just are facts about what’s good for the kind of creature that you are.

Really, I don’t know what I’m supposed to answer to. There seems to be some pretty seriously egregious misunderstandings of what I’ve said, on your part. And I don’t see how it’s my fault.

@Dan

Is von an absolutist? If not, then you may have to change how you interpret what he writes.

No, quite clearly not. Everything is context-dependent. That’s not the same as thinking that everything is subjective.

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

@von Rivers

@Dan~

I consider Von’s position as mildly constraining the meaning and purpose of all watches to only tell time, and nothing less, nothing more.

Well, you might think the purpose of a watch is to express your sense of style, and to tell time, and to bling, or whatever else. That’s all compatible with what I’ve said.

I am very clearly a pragmatist.

In that case, words need to be useful more-so than they need to be perfectly logical or artisitically said.
If your ideas would not have a problem with what I’ve said, non-constraining, then I would think you have to be a pragmatist or something similar to a pragmatist.

I tried to explain pragmatic method, compared to perfectionist method, or absolutist method.
I made a new thread because of it also, that true names thread.

[zinnat]

@MechanicalMonster

There is no gap between causes and effects, or between “is” and “ought”; the so-called inductive problem is not problematic at all, it merely requires a more careful touch, the touch of the philosopher.

It is not “turtles all the way down”, as Zeno thought. One reaches limits in which force actualizes, sometimes these limits are called “god”, other times they are called “reality”, or perhaps “Plank’s constant”.

Existence is the only given. We start from here and move forward. Much induction, along with deduction, are required if we are to master things, if we are to gain knowledge, which means to gain perspective, and power.

For instance: what a thing IS determines what it OUGHT to be/do. Obviously. You are a particular kind of structure with such-and-such properties, laws, tendencies. The activity which emerges from this structure is “you”, and you will do whatever it is that you must do, given the causes from which such action has arisen. “Ought” is a perspective of applied values and predictions, applied against observations to determine a course of action, a desirable outcome. Morality is not false, nor impossible, it is merely one perspective among many, one more utility. “Ought” always collapses into “is”.

“The sun has always risen, therefore the sun will rise tomorrow” is a valid induction and obviously an invalid deduction. So? It is no less a gain of perspective and power to make this induction, even if deductively invalid; particularly when you are armed with the philosophical knowledge of the difference between the two.

There is nothing inherently incorrect about inductions, assuming one does them correctly (which means: knows the limits). The point is to encounter reality correctly, and induction is one tool toward this end. (Note: does not imply a radical scepsis)

Well, one may agree or disagree with him. Personally, i do not agree with him on many accounts.

But, this does not give us liberty to call him an idiot. That is not justified by any means.

On the contrary, most of the credit of the rise of the science goes to him and we would not be in the same state of the technological development as of now. Because, he pulled science out of the shadow of the philosophy and enabled science to grow on its own.

Having said that, as i see it, he is single most responsible person for the present mitigated status of the philosophy as it has been become the slave of the science instead of its mother.

with love,
sanjay

[Diekon]

@von Rivers

@Diekon

Allright, how do you derive an ought from an is? I don’t see how it’s possible.

It’s the easiest thing in the world. Take a watch, for example. A watch is something that keeps time. So what should a watch do? —That’s easy, Watson! A watch should keep time!

Why was that so easy, you ask? Well, it’s just because descriptive components are blended into normative language, and normative components are blended into descriptive language. You just can’t pull them apart. It’s enough to tell you that a printer prints, to know that a good printer is a printer that prints—and that how a printer ought to be is to be a thing that prints.

Humans are more complicated than watches and printers. That’s why philosophy and ethics is interesting… the basic questions of ethics (How ought I to live?) are really explorations of who you are, because once you find out who you are—your purposes and functions and etctera—you’ll know what you ought to do. It’ll just fall right out and be clear… because the descriptive and evaluative components of everything are blended together throughout.

I don’t think this works because wer’e talking about morality, and a watch isn’t even a moral agent where morality applies. Furthermore you are i think confounding the meaning of moral good with evaluative good (eg a good book). It’s not morality bad to write a bad book.

And finally even if the points above wouldn’t be convincing, you can’t just apply the same reasoning to humans as you did with watches. Watches are created by man with a clear purpose in mind. Unless you think humans are also created by a creator god with a purpose, the analogy fails.

[anon]

@von Rivers

anon,

@anon

Similarly, I noted recently that von Rivers claims there is a single “right action” in any given situation.

I have never said anything like that. In fact, I’ve said explicitly many times that there may be many solutions to any given problem, in any given situation.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=182625&p=2410258&hilit=+von#p2410258

For context, that’s just one post in a short discussion where I claimed that you’re emphasis on correct actions (thou shalt) rather than the traditional disallowed actions (thou shalt not…) is wacky. When I asked for clarification that you say there is a correct action in any situation, you agreed. My point is that “moral” behavior is an art, not a math problem to solve. So you say there isn’t necessarily one correct answer. Well that can apply to math problems too. My criticism is the same either way - this approach to morality is impoverished and leads to a meaner world.

[anon]

@Diekon

@von Rivers

@Diekon

Allright, how do you derive an ought from an is? I don’t see how it’s possible.

It’s the easiest thing in the world. Take a watch, for example. A watch is something that keeps time. So what should a watch do? —That’s easy, Watson! A watch should keep time!

Why was that so easy, you ask? Well, it’s just because descriptive components are blended into normative language, and normative components are blended into descriptive language. You just can’t pull them apart. It’s enough to tell you that a printer prints, to know that a good printer is a printer that prints—and that how a printer ought to be is to be a thing that prints.

Humans are more complicated than watches and printers. That’s why philosophy and ethics is interesting… the basic questions of ethics (How ought I to live?) are really explorations of who you are, because once you find out who you are—your purposes and functions and etctera—you’ll know what you ought to do. It’ll just fall right out and be clear… because the descriptive and evaluative components of everything are blended together throughout.

I don’t think this works because wer’e talking about morality, and a watch isn’t even a moral agent where morality applies. Furthermore you are i think confounding the meaning of moral good with evaluative good (eg a good book). It’s not morality bad to write a bad book.

And finally even if the points above wouldn’t be convincing, you can’t just apply the same reasoning to humans as you did with watches. Watches are created by man with a clear purpose in mind. Unless you think humans are also created by a creator god with a purpose, the analogy fails.

Well said, Diekon. It’s pretty straightforward.

[Diekon]

@statiktech

You disagree that pain should be avoided if not for a greater benefit? I take that much as self evident.

Yeah but see, you are allready qualifying the statement with “if not for a greater benefit”. Pain is only a factor and in series of things that would matter for a morality. I don’t think Hume would say that what ‘is’ can have no bearing at all on what ‘should be done’, but only that one can’t directly deduce it for what ‘is’. It not that simple, e.g. pain → ought.

Also let’s not forget the context Hume was operating in, he was responding to a lineage of philosophers who tried to deduce whole moral systems from what is, from God. I suspect it was for an foremost this method he objected to.

(and sorry for not responding earlier, i have no internet for a few days, and i likely won’t be able to respond for the next couple of days.)

[Diekon]

@anon

Well said, Diekon. It’s pretty straightforward.

Thanks Anon!

[statiktech]

@Diekon

Yeah but see, you are allready qualifying the statement with “if not for a greater benefit”.

So? What does that matter?

Pain is only a factor and in series of things that would matter for a morality.

I think I agree with that.

I don’t think Hume would say that what ‘is’ can have no bearing at all on what ‘should be done’, but only that one can’t directly deduce it for what ‘is’. It not that simple, e.g. pain → ought.

You say that, but you don’t explain why. I’m telling you that I feel pain and immediately know I want to avoid it. I think that’s the case for most, if not all, people. The only reason I can fathom for inviting pain is to lead to some greater pleasure later on.

Ingesting poison causes human beings to suffer, therefore I ought not feed you poison. Now, if you can prove that the suffering caused by feeding you poison leads to some greater benefit in the end, I’d have to take that into consideration. It really is that simple.

[anon]

@Diekon

@statiktech

You disagree that pain should be avoided if not for a greater benefit? I take that much as self evident.

Yeah but see, you are allready qualifying the statement with “if not for a greater benefit”. Pain is only a factor and in series of things that would matter for a morality. I don’t think Hume would say that what ‘is’ can have no bearing at all on what ‘should be done’, but only that one can’t directly deduce it for what ‘is’. It not that simple, e.g. pain → ought.

Also let’s not forget the context Hume was operating in, he was responding to a lineage of philosophers who tried to deduce whole moral systems from what is, from God. I suspect it was for an foremost this method he objected to.

(and sorry for not responding earlier, i have no internet for a few days, and i likely won’t be able to respond for the next couple of days.)

You’re exactly right Diekon. Just as a watch is just one factor in a series of things that matter for telling the time, “pain is only a factor and in series of things that would matter for a morality”. The presence or absence of pain does not and should not determine good behavior.

Also, to von’s point that a watch that doesn’t tell time isn’t a watch… if it’s not a watch then there is nothing to say it ought to tell the time! According to von’s own logic, that is. A watch ought to do what a watch ought to do. If it’s not a watch, I guess the jury’s out on what it ought to do. And though I think the jury’s out on what anything ought to do (it’s always an open situation), my point is that von’s entire “a watch ought to tell time” argument here reduces to “a watch tells time”, which is to say that nothing is being said. Rather than deriving an ought from an is, he has simply redefined “ought” as meaning the same thing as “is”.

[anon]

@statiktech

I’m telling you that I feel pain and immediately know I want to avoid it. I think that’s the case for most, if not all, people.

Typical gut reaction and moral ought aren’t the same thing.

[statiktech]

@anon

The presence or absence of pain does not and should not determine good behavior.

Explain why not. Keep in mind that I never said pain alone determines good behavior. Pain needs to be weighed against potential benefit. I will say that I take suffering to be the primary measure.

Typical gut reaction and moral ought aren’t the same thing.

I’m not saying they are. I’m saying the gut reaction informs the morality. The gut reaction needs to be weighed against potential benefits as well, so I’m not trying to tell you that your gut is always right. Maybe it’s worth enduring a negative gut reaction for some greater pleasure to your gut later on.

[anon]

@statiktech

@anon

The presence or absence of pain does not and should not determine good behavior.

Explain why not.

Typical gut reaction and moral ought aren’t the same thing.

I’m not saying they are. I’m saying the gut reaction informs the morality. The gut reaction needs to be weighed against potential benefits as well, so I’m not trying to tell you that your gut is always right. Maybe it’s worth enduring a negative gut reaction for some greater pleasure to your gut later on.

“Why not” is a long conversation. In the thread von linked I talked at length about my position. But it doesn’t really matter what my position is, what matters is that ought can’t be rationally determined from is. Of course gut reaction informs morality. Moral stances don’t just fall out of the sky.

[statiktech]

But it doesn’t really matter what my position is, what matters is that ought can’t be rationally determined from is.

I don’t see the point in making statements like that unless, or until, you’re prepared to explain yourself.

Ingesting poison causes human beings to suffer, therefore I ought not feed you poison. Now, if you can prove that the suffering caused by feeding you poison leads to some greater benefit in the end, I’d have to take that into consideration. Explain to me why that is not a rational determination based on what is.

[anon]

@statiktech

But it doesn’t really matter what my position is, what matters is that ought can’t be rationally determined from is.

I don’t see the point in making statements like that unless, and until, you’re prepared to explain yourself.

Ingesting poison causes human beings to suffer, therefore I ought not feed you poison. Now, if you can prove that the suffering caused by feeding you poison leads to some greater benefit in the end, I’d have to take that into consideration. Explain to me why that is not a rational determination based on what is.

What do you mean you don’t see what the point is? What’s so difficult about “logic doesn’t lead to the necessary conclusion that suffering should be avoided”?

“Ingesting poison causes human beings to suffer, therefore I ought not feed you poison” involves no logic. The “therefore” in that sentence isn’t a logical “therefore”. It’s ok - the world doesn’t fall apart without this logical connection.

[phyllo]

But it doesn’t really matter what my position is, what matters is that ought can’t be rationally determined from is.

I don’t see the point in making statements like that unless, and until, you’re prepared to explain yourself.

Nothing in the world, indicates how to compare the pain and pleasure. Nothing says how much suffering you ought to endure to gain a particular benefit. The world says neither that you should endure a pain to get a pleasure nor that you should avoid the pain and forgo the pleasure.

[statiktech]

@anon

What do you mean you don’t see what the point is? What’s so difficult about “logic doesn’t lead to the necessary conclusion that suffering should be avoided”?

I mean anyone can make statements without supporting them. I don’t see the point, especially here. Also, that logic doesn’t lead to a single, necessary conclusion doesn’t mean that logic can’t be used to support a particular conclusion.

“Ingesting poison causes human beings to suffer, therefore I ought not feed you poison” involves no logic. The “therefore” in that sentence isn’t a logical “therefore”. It’s ok - the world doesn’t fall apart without this logical connection.

You didn’t ask me to construct a syllogism, and I’m not particularly good at doing that. All I’m doing is deriving an ought from an is. You know, like we’ve been discussing.

That pain is to be avoided is axiomatic. That’s literally what pain tells you—to avoid what you’re doing.