lol, ok.[:)]
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say. I think the discussion has really gone off-course from my initial response to Lilburne. The only thing that I’ve picked up from you’ve said so far is that there is no fact/value dichotomy as you’ve made it clear that values can be facts.
Then there can be no such value which is either a result of a fact and/or a fact in itself. For example, I value that you exist (GL). Is that not both value and fact? Or at least a value attached to fact irreducibly?
Ryan said certain desires. Desire is a category of action, but not any particular desire.
That you value is a fact (ie X values Y’s existence). The content of the value (any expression of it) is not (ie Y ought to exist).
Yes. And that’s what I told Ryan. That’s a non-issue.
The point is there fact/value is a false dichotomy. There are values that are facts. That has already been discussed.
It still depends and holds too many caveats. I could say Y ought to exist and act Y. A community could say Y ought to exist and act Y. The false dichotomy is to maintain that the fact/value is universal without exceptions.
Acting in accordance with your value “Y ought to exist” does not make the statement “Y ought to exist” a fact. It only makes the statement “wilderness, at the moment of action, valued the existence of Y” a fact.
I see no difference between what is and what ought to be as often one seeks what isn’t, but should be, into what is.
Remember this:
There are not any “caveats”, “conditionals”, or “depend[ents]”. There are just two different things, one of which, it is sensical to call it either “true” or “false”, the other of which, it does not:
Now:
Really, I do not think that it is expedient to call what I am trying to explain a “fact/value dichotomy”.
No, you are misunderstanding our points. For we are not saying that “[t]here are values that are facts”, like that a certain portion of what we call “values” are able to be true or false and a certain portion are not. What we are saying is that, in one sense, no “values” are able to be true or false and in the other sense, all “values” are.
I’m sorry, but I can’t decipher that…
If the statement is reflective of the act, then yes it is. The content of “Y” that can be acted is a fact when acted.
Therefore the value is a fact. False dichotomy.
Which ones?
ok, why?
Which only affirms my point. Why the dichotomy then?
But the statement is only truly reflective of the act if “wilderness believes…” is tacked onto the beginning of it.
Let’s not throw out science, don’t simply take wilderness’ word for it. It is possible to assert that individual-A values, as a matter of fact, a TV when they are involved in the exchange of a TV.
My quoting of Lilburne was supposed to answer that.
The dichotomy is between facts, things which are able to be either true or false, and ultimate desires, things which, as I demonstrated, are not.
my fault.
If ultimate desire doesn’t exist factually, ie. in reality, then it doesn’t exist and I can’t argue against something that isn’t real.
No, we already said that the fact that they exist is a fact. But the grain of truth in what you are saying in the above quotation is that, yes, it is impossible to “argue against” the ultimate desires of people.
It’s a fact. It’s not a fact. Which is it?
And I know you’re saying the content of the fact isn’t a fact, but if it’s not a fact then it isn’t real. Even if the factual content of the value is only a fact to one individual in the whole world it is still a fact to that person. Though of course they could be wrong.
If they are facts, then it is possible to argue against the ultimate desires of people. People are not infallible.
I hope that AJ sees this thread. It is a perfect example of how our language is able to really mess us up.
OK, let me try to revise the language a bit:
Whether an ultimate desire exists or not is either true or false.
But as I demonstrated, the ultimate desire itself is neither true nor false, it is just given.
That is all.
Yes, but he only points that out and I can’t recall a time when he was actually providing meanings to the words. He only probes with questions. And waits for others to define the words. I mean there is not necessarily anything wrong with pointing that out, but I’d rather partake in a discussion with contributions to what words mean and not only pointing out that ‘people are talking past each other’. That part is obvious.
Ok. Now this I understand, if… What you are saying is the ultimate desire is a first principle, which I think you are. In other words, some things are self-evident and are not logically deducted because the deductions would depend on these first principles in order to deduct from them. The act of deduction would be a negative demonstration. Which is great.
But what does this have to do with the fact/value dichotomy?