Hi Craig, On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is the Is-Ought gap the same as the Fact/Value gap? > Aren't there really 3 sides to the question: > there is always a gap, never a gap or sometimes a gap? > Have you read Searle's "How to D erive 'Ought' from 'IS'"? I think the fact/value distinction is just to say that facts and values are different sorts of things. Some would say that values are a type of fact while Pirsig would say that facts are a species of value. (The positivists would have said that talk of values is incoherent babble.) The is/ought gap is the philosophical problem of determining how to derive an "ought" from a bunch of "ises." Hume said it can't be done. Most have agreed to the extent that it is asserted as a dogma that it can't be done. Putnam is saying "so what?" We are never in that position of having a bunch of "is" premises and needing to derive our very first "ought." Instead we always approach any inquiry with a bunch of oughts in hand. For example, we think certain sorts of arguments ought to convince. I haven't read the Searle essay. Do you have it? Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
