>While I agree on the popularity of these terms, I'm not particularly fond of relying on popularity as an argument for or against something of this nature.

I'm not either. I'm commenting on your question of "Why do you assume we live in a reality of "is" and not a reality of "ought?" I am not the person you asked that to, but I figured I'd answer anyways. I am assuming, as I'm sure the other person does, too, that there definitely is an "is" to the world. If I'm making assumptions, I'll assume away the thing that seems the most obvious until I hear something that makes it questionable.

>"the fulfillment of desires" sounds very much like an "ought" to me, not an "is"

When I say desires, I mean it in the broadest, evolutionary sense possible, something like "material, emotions, and stimulation the organism wants/needs/desires for survival, health, and happiness." It's hard to call those things an "ought" because dogs obviously want things, they even need things to survive, but to say the dog "ought" to seek out the game of fetch seems weird, just as it seems weird to say a dog ought to eat to survive, unless you just mean an if/then if it wants to survive, then it should eat. The dog just "is" wanting to play fetch, in the same way my want for equal treatment under the law is a chain of conclusions stemming from my desire to be happy and healthy in the world, and that desire to be happy and healthy just "is" what I desire.

>You talk about the physical reality of "is" being something tangible that we can perceive through our senses... Yet you're also labeling Sally's desires as an "is", which seems to undermine your initial point about "is".

"Ought" arises when one questions what they should be desiring, as in what is a "good" thing to desire. The question pretends that a person is able to control what makes them happy and healthy. People just desire to be happy and healthy, and the nature of what makes someone happy is not under their control, just as the desire to be fulfilled/happy/healthy/survive isn't under their control. It just is a truth or a false that one desires this or that, that ABC leads to XYZ. The "ought" is if one should desire this or that, but that assumes one can control their desires, and I have yet to see a convincing argument for free will.

>While I tend to agree that "ought" cannot really come from "is"

If one means "ought" to mean "if you want this, then you ought to do that", then I think you can craft an "is" from "ought." If you want to solve world hunger, then you ought to do things that further that goal.

>I wonder why everyone assumes that the starting point is "is" and not "ought".

As I said, the reality of the universe seems to really be really real, and there really seems to be some kind of real set of rules that really determines how things play out in this reality. There is no equivalent overwhelmingly obvious set of rules for the "ought reality."

>Because I think "is" can come from "ought". And I also don't think it's terribly challenging to imagine a world originating from "ought" not "is".

I think it's very hard to imagine an "is" that derives from "ought" because if there is no "is" to begin, then there is no "is" to behave how it "ought" to behave. If there is an "ought," which I don't believe really exists, it must be proceeded by an "is" that can do what it ought. Edit: Re-reading this, I guess if we can imagine that "ought" exists somewhere, that there is a 'Higgs boson field of morality' that we just haven't discovered yet, then I supposed it could exist before, after, or come to exist exactly at the same time as everything else.

Individualism vs collectivism is the political spectrum. What you prefer is somewhere along the gradient from one extreme (anarchy) to the other (communism). Liberalism is critiqued by Marxism and I guess anarchy. So, yeah, you could espouse being an individual bandit also.

Pretty much. Quantum on one side, relativity on the other. Gnostic vs kabbalah, but we all worship the same god. Apparently joining the two is a biatch.

I know I sound crazy, but I'm surprised it's confusing people considering even Einstein looked to philosophy for answers after relativity. Dude was recycling old ideas to see if they fit anywhere else, trying to turn feelings into numbers. Not a bad idea if you have the vision to see it and the time to waste chasing it.

One can both critique capitalism and not espouse communism.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[removed]

Additional ideas I had Over the day…

So in social media here’s the problem. The business is a free speech enterprise that is autonomous to control itself how it sees fit. The mechanisms by which they seek to maximize profit is an inclusionary model. This skirts the whole paradox of tolerance ideas that Popper posited. So in this public sector platform we have to ban or reprimand those who make the area toxic and un inviting /unwelcoming. Much like in tribes we outcasted the disruptor as can be seen still throughout the animal kingdom. That extends further as some consider certain speech violence now, which in itself has validity when acted upon and politically legislated. So these company’s then unfairly ban people or unjustly leave on others who incite bannable offenses that would dislodge people from the platforms still there.

As well as the need to contend with the Mayhem bots, discord sowers; infecting reality with ill tempered machinations and transient contrivance. Cus fear and “anger gets shit done.” Or it scares one into a shell they Sheldon come out of; blocking the further off from community and basic needed human interaction.

So the only thing I see to do is mandate a fair enforcement strategy that’s transparent instead of secretive and unknown. Many people don’t even know for sure why they were got banned so how do you even modulate on the right direction? Bow your head and succumb or then become the guy that resort to 4chan instead where you’ll find much worse even criminal intentions spreading and metastasizing?

We can also remember that the traditional “debating” isn’t usually the best way to change minds. Blood sport seldom is greeted fondly. And most importantly, You’ve just gamified the process of discussion by doing so. If you do good and the audience see it maybe you can do exactly what I said and just ease someone’s perspective off a bad position. Then even if that 10% might start thinking hey, I don’t like your world view but you seem like an honest person and I’ll listen to your future material to see the best honest hearted version of these perspectives. Then those people moderate down often. Just as we see Obama to Bernie to Trump sort of voters. We see the Shapiro Jordan Peterson rabbit holes that then get you threw algorithm connection down to the worse version with more made up fear belief. So if you are good debater online you can get amplitudes more of return in scale even if it is 1%. Since our sample size increases drastically. And I really think there are more people than ever interest in these things but you can for straight to flat earth and fast if the right foundations aren’t set. Those people aren’t bad people they just don’t have basic understanding of these things and they are curious minds we could turn to more good than bad if we tried.

Changing the algorithmic connectors is another problem that I haven’t thought of how to solve enough to give any idea on yet.

The burden of proof is hard to establish in debate unless you have side researchers fact checked on both teams. And that’s just it actually, many have no clue what the burden of proof is in the first place. Ask a Christian why they believe in their god And it’s unfalsifiable feelings and circular unreasoning. This is where the tea up around mars example plays really well. You can’t force me to prove there is no tea cup orbiting mars, that’s a claim too hard to examine. You must establish the material fact of the matter. And of course god as an a example is the agnostic equalizer since there’s no proof to back the claim. Then the smarter guys line JP and Shapiro like to reverse engineer ways why their socialistic and biological (essentualizing typically) that their predispose or station to resting on laurels and fear of changes is valid to compete this faith belief cycle. Of course we could get into an number of argument there after since we’re now getting back to philosophical frame works all of which as I’ve said have plus and minuses, some far more than others.

As a caveat; you may have noticed I make biological claims as well as speak against them. Often many of them are unwaveringly followed or more so unexplaining uses by people. But they do have their place. Agian epistemologically we need to observe are character La and pre existing condition to better it. I could go down this route more but the main point is that it’s dangerous to go full Cioran on it in my view. The battle between the organic man and the abstract man is real. But we must seek a balance and a rational one that can coexists with social trial level abstractions that made it possible for us to be here in such advanced civilization in the first place. If we return to the animal state, we know how that goes. But if we fully abstract away from ourselves… then what the fuck are we? But displaced abstractions away from our condition and thought? So I use these description as what they are descriptive statements and I don’t urge people to derive an empirical claim of an ought from an is.

My frame work is sort of how Sam Harris or David’s Duestch’s (the begging of infinity) might see it a little (though I’d don’t agree on everything with any one perosn) … we apply all these models and ideas and use them to better the material conditions while using layers something like bicameral governments or 3 separate branches of government that responds and is informed by people, new conditions, science, history and wisdom (hopefully). While we also have massive specialization all around us that we must trust at times these industry’s and fields expertise. I want healthy versions of all these ideas under the sun not in the shadows so that we can moderate forward by being adaptive and evolving to a better updated version of ourselves individually, within groupings and up to the meta global levels. Currently a lot of the discourse is driving us to fight the shadows of our own worst thoughts of people. Back to the straw men in a field that I want to remove instead of see attacked with fiery rage, disgust and vengeance.

Here’s a big one… by dissolving yourselves of strong identity we can do a lot. Maybe being a person with no ethic identity being largely a mutt with 18 plus odd ethnic derivations just on my dads side that did a DNA ancestry test. It has given me the special footing to think of people as citizens of the world rather than person A from country Z who believes in T and backs M politically. Extinguishing our small tribal nature. These strong relationships groupings are the perch at which we throw rocks at. So if I don’t belong to any single group the target isn’t available. Through a rock at me and I hope to be like water where I absorb it. Sure there could he splash but that’s just the negative energy which i chose to diffuse rather than return with the full maelstrom and rage of a tidal wave. Knowing you have the potential and ability to do this, and constraining it is very powerful indeed. It’s something JP would would describe often. (Not to get too fixate on anyone character. He’s just a good example of a lot of this good and bad out in this social tribulation, that many know <most not so well from both his fan and haters side> of in this space between actual thinkers and pop culture).

I don’t want a mono culture. I want my democratic liberal free world to be the over arching structure that facilitates variety. So even though I’m a mutt I’m not telling others they need to be unconnected to there culture. It’s these cultures I love and would never seek to mute.

Diversity is an ideal worth appreciating. Not for its sake alone. And many are hyper ignorant to why it’s important. Though unfortunately, if you move too fast you’ll lose a lot of people that would other wise be on board. Part of it is peoples attitudes and orientation to greeting change is most the problem. We know young people are most apt… while older Creatures of habit are disturbed and cranky all too easily. But the long standing truth is the more of these ideas clash and combine, that fission and fission recombinant to better more vibrant potentials. Nothing is objectively in its perfect form or golden era as the world is constantly in flux. So regression is a recipe for disaster at its core to me. Stating the past had it figured out is the most dubious claims of all. We have to take off our fragmented memory’s rose tinted glasses and not allow for the retelling of history in the wrong ways where we control it (ex: 1984). While there can be elements of going back that we can reimagine and rebuild and reintegrate. Maybe we did leave out something that killing god did but nihilism doesn’t have to be the Last mans end state… calling all Uber mensch’s to come out and play

And let me be abundantly clear.. I’m not perfect nor am I claiming to be. Nor am I saying anyone else’s methods or lack of care is wrong or right. I’m not putting down value claims there. Part of the human experiment is that many will not be thought leaders or inspirational and we need to realize this and appeal to them on proactive grounds rather than making everything political or zero sum. There are always far more followers anyway than ground breaking innovators. So we can’t pose these question in a such a narrow way. Often you can share ideas on social media and people say “oh, so you think you’ve got it all figured out!” And I’m like no, just trying to be a positive interlocutor that establishes hopefully my opinions well and refined wisdom (if we can call it that) that’s part of this bigger project of moving forward and bettering ourselves. I’m my biologically model 1000.0 (or whatever). And if I don’t take it upon myself with all these opportunities to better my self then it’s my fault if Im stuck on my base level operating system (me 1.0 - software).

I don’t know. As AI generated text becomes more and more coherent it could raise questions about how thought is produced. Of course, these AIs are not motivated to come up with new philosophy but rather to mimic the speedy patterns of other people. But it still takes more than just regurgitating data, it takes actual thought for a human to do that. If that can be machine-generated then what’s going on in our brains?

in before:

"follow the science" and later on "I am the science"

"now is the time to do as you're told" - anthony fauci

it's basically a long winded way of saying the ends justify the means. "we have good intentions so indulge us regardless of whatever foresight you might have, we have good intentions, so if you don't agree with us, you defacto have bad intentions, so we can kill you"

[removed]

Science science cannot bridge the is/ought gap. You can apply a moral framework and use science to gather information and guide decision making, but that moral framework is ultimately outside of the bounds of science.

Did you mean to say "a lot"?
Explanation: alot is not a word.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Did you mean to say "a lot"?
Explanation: alot is not a word.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Did you mean to say "too much"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github

Relative morality is called situational ethics, is that what you claim science to be.

[removed]

[removed]

"before rules" assumes that no rules currently exist, and hence you have a blank slate on which to build your idealized rule set.

and People clearly would not be as they are, because they currently exist within a set of rules, societal practices and pre-existing mindsets that you're choosing to completely ignore in order to build that set of rules.

> "They just need to revise their moral judgements"

Yup, they need to discard all their life experiences and societal upbringing from their entire life, discarding their current mindset and attitudes completely, in order to make the change to your new ruleset. I believe that may be semi-possible with mass brainwashing and massive propaganda campaigns, but its hardly reliable, nor achieves a consistent result across society.

People's moral judgements are based on a wide variety of things, and are specific to an individual, as shaped and molded by their circumstances, environment, upbringing, society etc.

"Revising" that in everyone in order to generate some form of conformity with your new rule set isn't a viable option by anything except force and brainwashing, because everyone's experiences are different, hence their moral attitudes are different.

Found a new one to fall asleep to.