I can place two oranges on the table, and then immediately see that there are two oranges. Then I can place two more oranges next to them, and directly see that there are now four oranges. I can repeat this experiment as many times as I like and the result, it seems obvious will always be the same; for the simple reason that objects do not appear out of nowhere; and even if they did that would not contradict the formula, if I really did put two oranges there both times. This is a matter of direct observation and has nothing to do with the project of the Principia Mathematica; which was to try to show that 1+1=2 can be derived purely logically. — John

You may have a point about how they were working on how to derive 1+1=2 logically. But, do you know why they wrote the Principia Mathematica in the first place? And do you know if their project was considered a success?

I think the point of that formulation is simply that we can verify and thus objectify 'is's'. If I say, pointing: "Look there is a dog", you can easily verify that there is in fact a dog there. Of I say, "You ought not treat your friends that way"; there is nothing verifiably obvious that can be pointed at in an analogous way. That is the basic way of thinking about the two cases; that it is a fact that there is a dog there (or not) whereas it is not a fact in anything like the the same kind of straightforward way that can be directly indicated, that you ought not treat your friends that way. There are many shades in between, though, and I already gave a couple examples. — John

Are you claiming that all claims Are verifiable, or that all claims Must be verifiable? What do you know of Logical Positivism and why it failed?

I'm not making specific claims about ethics or morality, or even how to figure them out, I'm just than suggesting that moral facts aren't quite as odd as I first imagined.

Look at it this way. How long did it take us to figure out some facts about our world? We made estimates of the diameter of the earth for thousands of years before we finally got it right. Seems to me that there might also be a learning curve IF moral facts, as well.

I say the question is irrelevant. When dealing with an "is" there is nothing to be bound, no person who is meant to act in any particular way. Something just "is."

As to the proof, that's in the logical discintion between "being true" and "being ethical." If existence made ethics, then simply being so (an "is") would define ethical behaviour. This is not true. Many states are unethical. To be "ethical" is a different meaning than being something that "is." — TheWillowOfDarkness

It looks like you've just found another way to say, "I know there can't exist moral facts".

The truth "You can't get an ought form an is" is unaffected by this thought. It's still true even is everyone belie you can get an ought form an is. — TheWillowOfDarkness

And you would prove that, how exactly? Is that "truth" falsifiable? Verifiable?

Looks to me that what you mean to say is "we all Ought to accept that you can't get an ought from an is".

It's not ethically binding. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Is it binding in other ways?

The point of my thread is to suggest that the claim, "you can't get an ought from an is" may not actually be binding. I don't think we can say much without resorting to ought claims.

And I wanted to point out that facts are odd things. I'm not convinced that moral facts would be any more odd than "just plain old regular facts".

But, I don't know. These are just thoughts I have after reading/listening to John Holbo.

I don't know if you read the rest of the post where I gave some examples of common claims that are usually considered to be facts, but are not susceptible of easy verification by observation? — John

I think the question is, which facts are facts even though they can't be verified? The point of this thread is that facts are odd things. And I don't think the statement "you can't get an ought from an is" stands up to scrutiny. An obvious question is "why not?" I'm starting to wonder why Hume didn't notice his own contradiction (he said "you can't" and then he went and did it himself).

Simple math like 2+2=4 is easily verifiable by observation.

I think you must have a different understanding of math than I do. I think you actually just know that 2+2=4.

I'd be very impressed if you could find a way to explain how to falsify mathematical claims (have you never heard the story of how it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages to show why 1+1=2?). And then you'd have to explain just why it is that falsification itself is important. And after that, you'd have to explain how to falsify the claim "claims must be falsifiable". I think I see a conundrum.

Looks to me that no one can really state anything without using some kind of "Ought".

It looks to me like we have no other options. Now that I've read Holbo, I see "Oughts" all over the place.

Hume said "you can't get an Ought from an is, so that means...."
If you're right, what does it mean?

Well I made my claim "you can't falsify math" before I checked to see if I was right. Apparently it is a controversial issue, with many philosophers saying you can't, and a few saying you can.
So, right now, I don't know if I believe mathematics is actually falsifiable, or not. But, regardless, there are issues with the entire idea of falsification/verification in the first place. For instance, how do you falsify/verify the claim, "all claims must be falsifiable?" Looks to me like someone snuck in another Ought.

In the end, all we do all seem to assume that "all _____ Ought to be falsifiable." Why do we assume that? Or do we know it? How do we know? How could we know?

Maybe we "know" that all ____ Ought to be falsifiable like we "know" there are moral facts.

No, because we have a means to test the truth of the claim. — Michael

Are you sure? How would you falsify the claim that 2+2=4? Is it true because everyone accepts it, or do we all accept it because it is objectively true?

And I'm saying Hume can't have it both ways.... either you can get an Ought from an is, or you can't.

Fair enough. I thought that was where you were going. Glad to hear one other person agrees that the existence of moral facts are a real possibility... or at least not inconceivable.

The point is that Hume says, "you can't get an Ought from an is". Then he breaks his own rule by saying, "reason Ought to be the slave of the passions."

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.

David Hume

As vacuous as saying you know that 2+2=4? Is it true because we all believe it, or do we all believe it because it is objectively true? (can we even falsify any mathematical claim?)

You're making assumptions. You're claiming to know that there is nor will there ever be any way to falsify a moral claim.

Maybe there is/will be, maybe not.... I'm saying, "consider the possibility". I don't buy the argument, "we know it's not possible." Especially given the oddness of all facts. Given what I know about the world, the possibility of moral facts doesn't look all that odd.

a major issue in modern ethical discourse is based on the 'is/ought' distinction. — Wayfarer

Funny thing about that. I came across John Holbo of the National University of Singapore, who points out that Hume doesn't quite follow his own rules. How did Hume get us to believe reason Ought to be slave to the passions? Because he says so?

Commonly, if something is claimed to be objectively so, that is to be a fact, this means that it is inter-subjectively verifiable, most satisfactorily by direct observation. — John

And math fits that paradigm? And you know morality doesn't? It seems to me that just as other facts are not decided by consensus, they are objective in that way, then morality could also be universal, and discovered, not created. I'm not sure how to prove it either way, though.. I'm just pointing out that all facts seem odd. Math certainly has an oddness about it . Numbers not even existing in the real world, and all.

because purported mathematical facts are testable, whereas purported moral facts are not. — andrewk

I suppose you could assume that. But, how to prove it's anything more than an assumption on your part?

I was never a hard core defender of my faith, but because of the way I lived my life (I was a non-swearing, non-drinking construction worker for 10 years), people put me in positions where I felt it necessary to defend Christianity. but other than trying to get a few of my friends "saved" when I was in grade school, I could never put my heart into defending Christianity. I was too aware of the flaws.

I currently do enjoy being able to comprehend the other side to such an extent that I can argue both sides of many issues.

I do like imagining what the best possible God would be like. I sometimes wonder if that isn't what good theologians are actually doing and if it isn't important work.

Unfortunately many times I end up becoming obsessed with one specific topic and it's difficult to sense when I've stopped doing philosophy and have started an obsessive-compulsive cycle — darthbarracuda

I do that myself, lol. I blame it on my fundy background. If any of y'all see me go OCD on your butt, just holler "knock it off, fundy!" 8-)

But, I think even more basic than all the above, is that (after being influenced by Greg Sadler) I think philosophy can give us an idea about why and how we're messing up our lives, and what to do about it.

And I have a strong desire to be authentic.

I grew up in a radical young earth creationist, Calvinist church in which there were no musical instruments, women wore headcoverings and were silent (at least during services). It was interesting in that there were some exceptions to the no musical instruments and no women in leadership roles... there were some progressive elements even in that church, but those experiments didn't last long, and they reverted back to their ultra- conservative ways after a short period of time.

Our church was very anti-evolution, and I took the time to research the topic for myself when I was in my 20's. I decided that no matter what one believes about God, the evidence was clearly in favor of evolution being the case. I naively thought that our church was radical in it's rejection of evolution, but the reality is, I discovered that most people who consider themselves to be mainstream Christians (not fundamentalists) also reject evolution. I do admire Christians like Ken Miller and Francis Collins who are taking the time to explain to other Christians just what evolution is, and what the evidence is.

Anyway, I tried various denominations until about 3 years ago, at which time I started calling myself an atheist, and started looking for other atheists to hang out with. The ones I met were just too anti-religion for my taste. I'm also not impressed with the way that the atheists I've met approach morality- which looks to me very much like "religions invented morality, we don't like religions, and we won't be moral- so take that religious people!". I've since decided that the atheists who hang out in groups with "atheist" in the title of said group, aren't the type of people I want to spend much time with. (that's been my experience with the few groups I've spent time with... your mileage may vary).

So then I just happened to take a Philosophy of Ethics class (my 2nd philosophy class). And I loved the rational approach to morality. I decided to learn as much about philosophy as I could. I started meeting with a local philosophy professor, and he did teach me a thing or two, before we parted ways (I do email him from time to time) after a few months.

Since then I accidentally stumbled on Stoicism (I like the Rationally Speaking Podcast, and Massimo mentioned it), and the philosophy is very attractive to me.

After looking into Stoicism for a while, and with Hadot's influence, certain forms of Christianity look to be attractive- specifically those with a strong emphasis on personal spiritual practices, vs judgmental attitudes towards others (and a rejection of the reality of evolution isn't very appealing). I tried attending a few UU churches, but something just doesn't fit. I think I may no longer be a church-goer.

Now I spend my free time reading philosophy and have started meeting with others to discuss philosophy. And I've been making a point of living in the moment, practicing negative visualization, thinking about my own death, and meditating. I also find myself thinking about what is and what is not in my control.

Any radical changes? I've decided to give up angry outbursts. Well, anger in general.

I wonder if Chrysippus was anything like this?

LOL. Yeah, I hear that. But, to tell the truth, this isn't my only time-waster.

Can philosophy help us to make more efficient use of time? I have been encouraged to think about the fact that I will die. Awareness of the little time I have left does make me think about what is most important in life.

I've also been encouraged to be thankful for each new day (and sometimes each new hour), since death is a reality.

This is the program I was referring to. It was broadcast for the first time earlier this month.

It seems to me that if Koko did anything like some people are saying she does.... then some legitimate researcher would be all over it, and there would be a ton of research papers on the subject. (absence of evidence anyone?... lol).

Hmmmm. I suppose I'll just have to wait and see.

I watched a program about Koko on PBS recently, and in it, [it was claimed] she frequently asked for visitors (among other things). I don't think it would be all that difficult to determine if she is only imitating, or if she is asking on her own..... but I'm not a scientist.

Some animals such as chimps can learn little bit of language but I remember coming upon a nice quote about chimps and their language ability saying that while they can learn some language, they never seem to have anything to say. This is exactly what one would expect if chimps (and other less intelligent animals) are merely living in the moment and from one impulse to the next. They have no actual thoughts. Humans are truly special and I have no idea why this happens to be so. — Prisoner of Love

Chimps and apes. Don't forget Koko.
What I see is disagreements about whether or not they have anything to say. But, nothing conclusive. One group says "yes , they do", another says "no, they don't". I don't know who to believe.

This article suggests that Orangutans can make judgments about whether or not they will like the taste of a new drink.

Orangutan able to guess a taste without sampling it, just like us.

I see this thread as acknowledging that we are all free agents, and that we are free to choose from among a wide variety of ways to look at the world. There are some who are attempting to sway others from Stoicism towards Philosophical Pessimism.

I will admit that the Stoics taught that virtue is good in and of itself, but it goes hand in hand with the idea that Eudaimonia- excelling as a human being, is good in and of itself. The Stoics taught that the Virtues are necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. <--- that is the defining feature of Stoicism.

And I hear others saying that they believe that life is bad in and of itself. And that is the defining characteristic of Philosophical Pessimism.

In Stoicism, virtues are to be pursued for the simple reason that it is inherently good in itself; it lacks a narrative of purpose -- why should one ought to pursue virtues? — OglopTo

By the same vein, though, one could ask, why would one wish to avoid suffering? Aren't you claiming that suffering (or even more generally, life?)is bad in itself?

What I hear is some people saying that life is bad (because it's suffering) so, let's live our lives such that there will be less (or no) life in the future. And that will be good, because the absence of suffering (the absence of life) is good in and of itself.

2. For the yet-to-live, do you know the traditional Buddhist or Stoic stand on anti-natalism in terms of the prevention of future suffering? If it is OK to procreate, what is the reason behind procreating, knowing pretty well that this new soon-to-be-human has to undergo yet another cycle of suffering? — OglopTo

You're defining life as a negative thing "it's suffering", and then asking, "why subject other beings to this terrible thing?"

You're saying life = suffering...

I think this thread can be reduced to the idea that less humans (anti-natalism) = less suffering... Therefore Pessimism is the best philosophy because it acknowledges and reduces suffering, in a way that is "not after the fact".

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth or claims that one should not reproduce.

Does the above look like a valid summation to you?

always after the fact. — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what you mean here. Isn't it obvious that suffering does exist? Anything we do in regards to suffering is "after the fact", isn't it?

How does Pessimism propose we deal with suffering in a way that is "not after the fact." ? Does "not dealing with suffering in a way that is after the fact" also = making sure less humans exist in the future (anti-natalism)?

The Pessimist knows and deals with this fact face on without resorting to suppressing it. Rather accepting it means that one cannot avoid it. It is ok to resent it, bitch at it, commiserate about it. That is part of the rebellion. Seeking to work with it is being complicit. — schopenhauer1

I think I see some claims here.
1. There is a proper way to deal with suffering;
2. The pessimist knows the proper way to deal with suffering
3. The proper way to deal with suffering is to face it head on without suppressing it, accepting it and not avoiding it. It's also proper to resent it, bitch at it and commiserate about it.
4. Seeking to work with it is bad (complicit).

So, does suppressing = wanting to rid the world of it?
Does admitting it exists and trying to prevent it in the future mean that one is "working with it"?, and if so, isn't that bad (because you're then being complicit)?

And of course your assertion is that "not being complicit" = making sure there are less humans in the future (anti-natalism).

I want to understand the point of the thread.

It's comparing Stoicism to Philosophical Pessimism and making the claim that Philosophical Pessimism is better because if Pessimism hand in hand with anti-natalism, then less humans to suffer in the future.

And you're saying that no philosophy ever has addressed the fact of human suffering? or just that Stoicism hasn't addressed the fact of human suffering?

Or are you claiming that only Philosophical Pessimism addresses the fact of human suffering?