Never Whistle While You're Pissing

[wolven7]

While taking a trip to the urinal at 1.24 pm, I realised something very simple about the Is/Ought distinction: We can't make the leap either way.

We cannot say, obviously, that something is a certain way, and therefore Should be that way. However, neither can we make the claim that it ought to be otherwise. We can say Nothing about it.

The Naturalistic Fallacy (the conflation of the is of predication and the Is of identity) is almost useless.

Tell me how it's not, and you win a prize.

Comments

Perception

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

If there exists an Objective Truth... a Platonic Ideal, to borrow a concept... it doesn't matter unless it can be observed objectively.

If you shuffle a deck of cards, each draw is not random; it is in a predetermined order. But that fact doesn't necessarily help you unless you have a way of identifying the objective.

Since the possible existence of an ideal doesn't help one with one's observations, that's the part that isn't useful. The truth we experience of the observed is that which it becomes under observation.

To that end, using an 'ought' you want and shaping one's observations to unify it with the 'is' is a possible useful objective.

And to that end, I'm looking forward to introducing you to my partner.

Re: Perception

[wolven.livejournal.com]

"Determinism is the cards you're dealt, free will is how you play them"?

Re: Perception

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Well, that's flippant... but yes.

Schism between discrete and continuous time. Same sort of idea as quantum physics, whether something's energy or matter.

Re: Perception

[wolven.livejournal.com]

But it's both, both, both....

Re: Perception

[pallandrome.livejournal.com]

To be fair, it's pretty damn rare that we can even say something is without imposing our personal point of view, which is why we have measurement systems.

But ignoring that, recognizing that something is as it is does have it's uses. For example, people who concentrate on potentialities occasionally fall into dispair about the disparity between is and ought in their lives. There was an interesting article the other day about a study made of trauma victims from 9-11 that can help illustrate. Many of the trauma vics began to fret overmuch about what could have been done, and what SHOULD have been done. Often they are forced to reconcile that what happened, happened. That the events had a purpose gives the vics a sense of purpose themselves. That, in turn, allows them to more purposefully continue with their lives.

...or am I talkin bout the wrong thing?