Towards a JTB Ought-Is-Value Litmus

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is where I am at–work in progress:

LITMUS KEY: [define the three imports]

J (justified): OUGHT/ACT/DO: Ethico-existential (epistemic) import; Aristotle’s efficient cause.

T (true): IS/FACT/BE: Ontologico-material (scientific/metaphysical) import; Aristotle’s material cause.

B (belief): VALUE/-ATE/END: Hypo-/hyper-thetico-essential (aesthetic/teleological) import; Aristotle’s formal and final cause.

J, T, and B are a reality litmus called a harmonic triad, which means:

  1. Analytic: None of them have import unless they each have import independently (as they are distinct from each other) - one cannot stand in for the other.

  2. Synthetic: If one of them has import, they all have, had, and/or will have import in alignment with each other (as they all share the same substrate).

THREE FORMS OF DIALECTIC

The first is structured so that when you cross out two conflicting ideas and keep their commonalities, there is something “whole” left standing. This kind of dialectic removes the dross (nihil).

The second is structured so that a privation (nihil) is resolved with something “new” (not nihil) towards a “whole”. This kind of dialectic repairs what is broken.

The third is the starting/ending point (harmonic triad) whole towards which the first two forms of dialectic progress. It is a litmus against which all that is in conflict is compared to distinguish between dross, privation, and wholeness.

(Moral) Truth Litmus

This three-part (Moral) Truth Litmus tells us when a particular (moral/ethical) theory or model is artificial (versus anchored in or descriptive of reality), when that theory or model fails any part of the litmus:

(L1) Part 1: Essential Question Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must describe the answer to a question (“How and why should we be or behave with the other and self?”).

(L2) Part 2: Existential Demonstration Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must be discovered in reality, not created in divergence from reality.

(L3) Part 3: Universal Aspect: A (moral) theory/model must hold for all or none.

If no theory passes all three parts of the litmus, there is no (moral) truth.

Being discovered in/by every culture in history is good for part 3, but to pass part 2, you need a being whose essence is demonstrated (exists its essence).

See Parts In Red

Three (6?) Distinctions (D)
…Could you say each distinction is attended by two fallacies and two principles (itself, and its reverse)…does reversing the principle have a similar consequence like reversing the fallacy (below)…a way of regressing/returning back to the mean/dao/litmus (baseline is fubar if not the mean/litmus (dao/reality)?

D1. fact (is)-value distinction (violated by F2, F3)
T is distinct from B (and vice versa)

D2. ought-is (fact) distinction (violated by F4, F5)
J is distinct from T (and vice versa)

D3. ought-value distinction (violated by F1, F6)
J is distinct from B (and vice versa)

Six Fallacies (F)

F1. value→ought fallacy (violates D3)
The B→J fallacy (reversal of F6) is when you let value/-ate/end count for ought/act/do.

F2. value→is (fact) fallacy (violates D1)
The B→T fallacy (reversal of F3) is when you let value/-ate/end count for is/fact/be.

F3. is (fact)→value fallacy (violates D1)
The T→B fallacy (reversal of F2) is when you let is/fact/be count for value/-ate/end.

F4. is (fact)→ought fallacy (violates D2)
The T→J fallacy (reversal of F5) is when you let is/fact/be count for ought/act/do.

F5. ought→is (fact) fallacy (violates D2)
The J→T fallacy (reversal of F4) is when you let ought/act/do count for is/fact/be.

F6. ought→value fallacy (violates D3)
The J→B fallacy (reversal of F1) is when you let ought/act/do count for value/-ate/end.

The names of the fallacies have other names than the names given. I have withheld their given names because they often trigger a conflation of some combination of ought/is/value (or justified/true/belief)–and the whole point of this project is to untangle the conflation.

This has application across every field once I get it squared away, but because I don’t have knowledge in every field, I’m not going to be able to fully explain that.

Updates here.

2

I will present this material to the board for examination. Upon review, if the material is found to be noteworthy and useful, u will be contacted by the board.

3

Yeah I just now presented it to the board. That’s what this post was. But I appreciate that. :wink:

4

Is Prom referring to his dissertation ?
See Ischthus this is where a not having been has been is, had I not driven passengers crazy, literally and figuratively, by necessity and not merely idolizing the likes of Jen Kest, Henry Miller and Jack Kerouac. I could probably at par with pier.

But no sour grapes for something meant to be.

Just sayin’ and not yet au passant

5

I don’t know what he’s talking about. I’m assuming he’s joking around. If he’s gonna use it for his own dissertation he can have at it. I am not even in school. Everyone should steal it. It certainly doesn’t belong to me.

But… honestly… it would be cool to suss it out together…

6

Oops again , I honestly de-differentiated pro-vocation and provocation and even provocation.

I don’t blame anyone who may now comment on using this conflation of rhetorical confusion on English being a second language, must be swinging more toward the autistic from the pre-tending faux artistic mode of representation.
Was gonna use pretensions but that may suggest being under some kind of ‘tension’

And that is a fact as well.

7
8

Ought come from is. Where else would it come from? Isn’t? Lol.

9

Idiots actually build into their presuppositing, then too dumb to even realize or confront it, the idea that isn’t actually is. That something other than “is” might be. LOL

10

That thing you just wrote. You had not written it before you wrote it. Just an observation.

11

If all around you — IS — as it OUGHT to be — would you stop being snarky?

So I guess snark comes from Isn’t.

…but/or is it justified?

12

Trying again…

“Come from” (ontological import, true/truth) is not the same as “Justified by” (epistemological import, justified/goodness), or “Loved by” (essential/teleological import, belief/beauty).

The original self so loved all others that they incarnated as the other, so that every consenting self/other will not dissociate but thrive authentically. Burn it if it is in error.

13
14

ASQ JTB

action, substance, quality

D1. substance-quality distinction (violated by F2, F3)
T is distinct from B (and vice versa)

D2. action-substance distinction (violated by F4, F5)
J is distinct from T (and vice versa)

D3. action-quality distinction (violated by F1, F6)
J is distinct from B (and vice versa)

Six Fallacies (F)

F1. quality→action fallacy (violates D3)
The B→J fallacy (reversal of F6) is when you let quality count for action.

F2. quality→substance fallacy (violates D1)
The B→T fallacy (reversal of F3) is when you let quality count for substance.

F3. substance→quality fallacy (violates D1)
The T→B fallacy (reversal of F2) is when you let substance count for quality.

F4. substance→action fallacy (violates D2)
The T→J fallacy (reversal of F5) is when you let substance count for action.

F5. action→substance fallacy (violates D2)
The J→T fallacy (reversal of F4) is when you let action count for substance.

F6. action→quality fallacy (violates D3)
The J→B fallacy (reversal of F1) is when you let action count for quality.

15

Truth exists, and we exist, and part of our own existence is that we possess various faculties and avenues for ascertaining truths. These give certain truths to us, truths that become integrated into our minds as part of our overall worldview and set of beliefs. Since this process is limited and imperfect, errors also occur.

JTB is lazy philosophizing. First of all justification isn’t needed, as long as we believe something is true and it happens to be true, then good. If this is the case then it will also be the case that some process of truth-ascertaining occurred or is still occurring to give us access to this knowledge. The assumption that we need justification included comes from a silly Descartean radical skepticism and similar silly claims of “evil demons” who might trick us into believing true things for absurd or untrue reasons. What nonsense.

Then we are just left with Truth and Belief, which is just restating the basic structure and reality of the entire issue. Truth exists, and what we call beliefs also exist. Putting aside the problems with the concept of beliefs, because that also is another issue with the whole JTB thing, what really occurs are simply process of truth-ascertaining or truth-apprehension. These processes connect us as living beings to certain truths that we are capable of coming into contact with, or that we necessarily come into contact with for one reason or another. The emphasis should be on that one process mediating living beings to truth itself, and from there trying to probe and more deeply understand exactly how and why that process is what it is, as well as how we can improve it over time.

16

That process is the J & you know it ya big doofus.

17

p.s.

image
image2473×2473 1.09 MB

18

crosslinking

19

Philosophy is about comprehending and becoming truths, remaking yourself in the image of truth itself because of your own overwhelming truth-love. It has very little or nothing at all to do with constructing little piece by piece definitions of how you might come to know what a certain truth is or isn’t. Sure you can put JTB into epistemology and tantalize Phil 101 students with it, but that’s about it. Anyone who takes it seriously is quite literally at that novice level.

Imagine comprehending universal truths and being remade in the image of truth based on your own sheer and hard-earned truthlove and then setting around with this JTB nonsense.

Do drivers of Porsche’s need to sit there wondering and fretting over how the gearbox works? They can’t even drive the car until they figure this out! Lol.

20

Lol.+1