[MD] Putnam on Is-Ought and Truth

[david buchanan]

dmb quoted Pirsig:
"This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a subspecies of substance. [You can't get oughts from ises.] Substance is a subspecies of value. When you reverse the container process and define substance in terms of value the mystery disappears: substance is a 'stable patterns of inorganic values.' The problem then disappears. The world of objects and the world of values is unified."(Lila p101)



Steve replied:
I'm a bit confused. 


dmb says:

Yes, I agree.



Steve continued:
Previously you chided me with, "don't you see how the MOQ destroys this gap? The ises are oughts in the MOQ. Everything is derived from value," but now you seem to be saying that the MOQ gives a metaphysical foundation for this get when you now say "You can't get oughts from ises."


dmb says:

As the quote should have made clear to you, it is the metaphysics of substance (SOM) that says "you can't get oughts from ises" and the MOQ disagrees with that. The MOQ says facts ARE values. The MOQ says the physical order of the universe IS the moral order of the universe. That's how the MOQ destroys the gap between them. 

And that, sir, is why I complained about the absence of what Pirsig says on the topic. You're talking about a gap that does not exist in the MOQ and that only demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part. Even when I show you how and why this issue is irrelevant, you still don't see it. 



 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1