[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[Matt Kundert]

Hey Steve,

Steve said:
I'm surprised you agreed here [that the question of "what is" is 
different than "how to act"] as I was actually embarrassed for dmb 
for trying to make a point in this forum by insisting on a fundamental 
difference between IS and OUGHT.

Matt:
I've been thinking about that Humean distinction lately in relationship 
to the kinds of things pragmatists want to say about ethics and 
politics.  For example, I formulated a version of it directly after as 
the difference between theoretical questions and practical questions.  
Is this the same as the theory/practice distinction that pragmatists 
also want to blur?  Or the fact/value one?  Well, I think the trick is to 
begin to formulate and show what the blurring amounts by showing 
interactions: for is a blur the same as a monism?  In the present 
case of theory/practice, I think Hanson's notion of the 
theory-ladenness of discourse is right as the blurring movement, but 
what that means, I think, is that you can do abstract theory-work, 
and then bring back down your theory-work to _tinker_ with the 
practice.  This is essentially the Deweyan movement of inquiry, of 
reflection spurred by doubt.  So in this case, I was arguing that a 
consideration of _what_ the creative process is we might come to a 
better understanding of _how_ we should go about it.  Because our 
practical inferences are stated with theoretical vocabulary (i.e. 
theory-ladenness), we might get better practical inferences if we 
import a better theoretical vocabulary.

As I think this is essentially how Dewey viewed it, I think the train of 
thought serves as an effective replacement for the Platonic 
distinction, as opposed to a backslide into it.  This isn't assured, but 
the pedigree is at least sound.  (I've also been learning a lot in these 
terms from Robert Brandom.)

However, I have found an instance in which stating that there is a 
gulf between "is" and "ought" seems not only sound, but 
fundamental to human progress: how things _are_ today is no 
effective curb on our utopic visions of how things _should_ be.  It 
seems true.  And its a very effective weapon in short-circuiting bad 
inferences about peoples staying in their "stations in life."  If _moral_ 
change is to be envisionable, I think the non sequitor between "is" 
and "ought" might have to be in force.

Matt