On 20 Aug 2012, at 15:01, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
In evolutionary terms, is and ougth reflect the double nature of a
social being which has not lost is individuality, as individual and
as a member of a bigger whole. Both are in tension. The social whole
is also in our instinctive individual nature,and appear to the
conscious trough intuitions and feelings of duty. The "Ought" are
our long term rules for survival as individuals as member of a
society trough generations, which is accesibe trough intuition. The
IS is more inmediate to our intuition (when social things are ok).
But both are given, but are adapted to the social circunstances : We
would not be here if our ancestors would not have been egoistic.
Neither we would be here too if they would not attend their social
duties and repress the deleterious part of their selfish behaviours.
For this reason,John Maynard Smith, an evolutionist http://meaningoflife.tv/
said that the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy, because
the Ough is in an IS no less IS than the IS of our ordinary selfish
behaviour, with some matizations. is in concordance with the
Christian notion of the human nature of a man in permanent tension
between the god (which he have knowledge thanks to his Soul or his
Nous) and the evil of his socially and individually deleterous
This tension between deletereous individuality that endangers the
common good appears in all the scales of evolution. there are
parasite molecules, parasite genes, parasite intracellular
organules, parasite tissues and parasite individuals against which
the whole has a set of countermeasures. The transitions from a level
to the next never is complete. The tension between individuality and
sociality is ethernal, but in the human being this conflict is not
only is carried out externally, but in its own conscience.
Mathematical modal logic, like model theory and mathematical
semantics, illustrates also that the ought can be made as an is by a
change of level in the theories, as adding dimensions can sometimes do
that in mathematical physics.
The tension between the higher self and the "little selfish ego"
exists right at the start in all universal machine, even if this is
not palpable when the machine is isolated from other machine. I mean
that we can already justify a sort of "ought" by the logic of self-
reference, (notably the one give by [p & <>p)), and this might
corroborate some of Leibniz insight.
2012/8/20 Roger <rclo...@verizon.net>
All's well in Heaven, but down here on earth things are a little
Heaven is what should be, down here is what is.
This conflict earns preachers a nice life.
The Christian solution to this dilemma is that God solved it a long
time ago by allowing his son to be crucified and proved it by
resurrecting Him. IMHO.
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content -----
Time: 2012-08-18, 15:04:00
Subject: Re: On comp and the is-ought problem of Hume
Who’s Afraid of the Naturalistic Fallacy?
Oliver Curry, Centre Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of
Natural and Social Science, London School of
Economics, UK WC2A 2AE, UK; Email: o.s.cu...@lse.ac.uk.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at