Just because is is fact does not mean ought is value. You have not even attempted to make a case for that.
Is/fact is what. Ought is how. Value is why.
You have to have all three or you have none of them (and if you have one of them, then you have all three).
So yeah, basically, you’re right.
I don’t need to make a case for that, because it’s simply the case that, historically, the distinction between facts and values arose from the distinction between the Is and the Ought, respectively. (A fact is a knowable Is; a value is an unknowable Ought.)
No. The Is is what is. The Ought is what ought to be. (And a fact is what is known to be, whereas a value is what is thought or felt ought to be.)
You’re just trying to impose “the Trinity” on everything. But your description actually reminds me of Aristotle’s four causes… (Final cause is “why”. Efficient cause is “how”. Material cause is “what”. But actually, the fourth cause belongs together with the final cause, and the efficient cause with the material cause. Aristotle’s examples of efficient causes are things like “the sculptor”, who is himself a “what” in this sense. The sculptor and the stone both are; the form or idea is the final cause in that it’s what ought to be—whether it be the sculptor’s own idea or that of his commissioner.)
::
“The challenge to the possibility of knowing good and evil originated with Nietzsche; and Nietzsche pointed out that ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’, i.e., ‘science’ itself , are among the unjustified and unjustifiable ‘values’.” (Zuckert and Zuckert, Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy, pages 26-27.)
Poor Nietzsche… did he ever realize the end in itself (needs no further justification… is not for the sake of something else…prolly why Kant puts final cause in the blue/ought/how… works of love … oops that’s Kierkegaard… not driven by, but driving value…) (anywhayz)?
The Sculptor (material is—BEING) does not sculpt (efficient ought—DOING) alone. It is not good … or true power … for the Thinker (is) to be alone, but the true essence (formal/final why/value—THE BEGINNING/END POINT…initial/terminal) is families sculpting (ought) in unity with the original (triad: is, ought, value). Need not be biological family (and ultimately will not be sexual) (¿when?).
But the lack is inborn before we’ll seek the fullness. And when we have the fullness and forget the source, that lack is why we must be born again and seek again.
I’ll put it another way.
How you know there are different levels of “convergence with or divergence from” reality is the fact that how things are, and what you want, is not how they are supposed to be, or how you want them to be…especially when you know that none of your conflicting wants (that wins, anyway) is a good one.
This is not a Stepford reality.
Meh. Prolly for the best I don’t learn more logic or physics.
No, logic is great. You can test it, almost immediately using the “does it work?” method, which always produces fairly accurate results.
You’re right about physics though, best not to bother, it won’t help much for anything non-physics related at all. But.. it can always be used as a possible avenue for sounding clever in any largely unrelated discussion, and sow so much confusion that people just wander off in a daze and try to get all that s**t out of their heads again. The “physicist” will assume that they have conquered the discussion at that point, but most of the time, the reality is that people just got bored of listening to obfuscated nonsense and found an escape route.
Well that’s my experiences of those things, anyway.
It won’t leave me alone, unfortunately. That and chemistry. and biology. and cognition, etc.
Even though our countries are allies, this seems to happen to me a lot:
I suspect that watching a short clip of a film that I’ve already seen could be considered piracy, so I guess it makes sense.
That’s funny…. I wish I had that problem…
Yes, an end in itself needs no further justification, by definition… But is there an end in itself? And if so, what is it? And regardless, ought we to know? If so, why?
it’s the scene in “Good Will Hunting” where Robin Williams tells Jason Bourne aka Private Ryan that love ain’t all about f***in book learning.
The guy is called Matt Damon. 
This is the one that works here. Definitely worth reposting.
nuh uh it’s Will Hunting
