paul cotter and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
There's also a video trying to refute is-ought problem based on a paper by C. Pigden.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Xt6JhHtzIThe is-ought gap is vacuous (paper by C. Pigden).
There are photosynthetic animals. They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.
Animals can't synthesize certain amino acids and vitamins necessary for protein synthesis.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/07/2023 00:26:56There are photosynthetic animals. They acquire photosynthetically-fixed carbon by forming symbioses with algae and cyanobacteria.By your definition, humans are photosynthetic because we cultivate plants. Indeed we can't live without them. Admittedly "species" has no fixed definition, but "symbiosis" clearly implies that there are two distinct species involved.
I don't know why you waste your life with philosophy,. "Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.
Hamdani, that must be a ropey diesel if 10 mins are necessary for cover. Any well maintained diesel with good batteries will be up to speed and ready for load acceptance in 10sec or less. The spec on a very old Holech rotary ups fitted with a Mercedes diesel claimed something like 3.5sec from initiation of the start signal but I find that to be pushing credibility. I generally don't respond to these long threads as fairness would demand that one reads the lot before commenting and that would take far too long.
"Ought" is what you (or society in general) want, "is" is what you have.There are no cosmic imperatives - even the "laws" of physics are observations, not prescriptions.
If we expect anyone to be convinced by our derivation of ought from is, we need to start with the most convincing case of "is". The cogito as the first knowledge is the most convincing information there is.Let's start with a case where once upon a time, we're thinking about our own existence. This establishes the "is" case, which is there exist at least one conscious entity in the universe. The alternative for this case is : there's no conscious entity in the universe.How can this fact be used to derive the ought version of the same case?Since we can't change the past, the alternatives available for ought cases are:1. Conscious entity ought to stay existing in the universe.2. Conscious entity ought to stop existing in the universe.3. There's no ought case. This word is meaningless.
Elon Musk was once told reusable rockets don't work, and he shouldn't waste time and money trying to build them. But now they are the norm. Single use rockets are now sound stupid, except for extremely small use cases.
philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.
They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/07/2023 15:48:55They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments.Therefore philosophy is a waste of time. QED. Mathematical proof (if A then B) or scientific proof (hypothetical prediction not falsified by experiment) is not a waste of time.
A hypothesis that can only be supported by argument is by definition useless.
Quote from: alancalverd on 31/07/2023 11:37:29philosophy (pretending that the difference isn't obvious) is a waste of time.I don't think that's what philosophy is. Some philosophers are moral realists. They just haven't found a way to convince their opponents using convincing arguments. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCajDOmRU0o
Philosophers would be out of business if they posed solvable problems. Their business is to pretend that other people don't understand what they are doing, and that philosophical problems require indefinite debate. Constructing a square with the same area as a circle is impossible. Proving it is impossible is everyday mathematics.