logical 'truth' or consistency is actually normative because it says what is not fallacious, and what is, and obviously implies that you should not be fallacious or our words dont make sense. so you might mean something more specific, like ethics?
I look at logical truth as descriptive, not normative. It describes inventions of mind rather than discoveries like contingent truths do, but contingent truths also are not fallacious. What ought to be, is not what is necessarily the case. My position is that no normative statement is true.
Say, I'm not sure about normative language not being logically necessary, in the sense that normative language might be the content of a logical proof. But here's an idea I wanted to bounce off of you: if implication is a sort of normativity, wouldn't the fact that p -> q can be translated into ~(p.~q) be logical evidence of the unnecessity of normativity?
The necessity of their equivilance wouldn't itself be evidence of normative unnecessity for me, it's that no normative statement is logically necessary, even though they are necessarily equivilant. An implication doesn't become a necessity because it has necessary equivilance. This would be like saying beliefs are true because it's true we believe them.
very silly....
lunabirdie 3 years ago
you really need to get out more! lol
Winedarkseas 3 years ago
"I beg you to understand NORMATIVE language" -- LOL, 5 stars! I subscribed! Love your dramatic style! Hope you don't mind I'm Christian!
brainouty 4 years ago
A volutary beggar eh?
youmeandsomeknives 4 years ago
Excellent video; it's to the point and funny.
RowanFortuneWood 4 years ago
I think there for I am what I think I am?
Beggers belief so to speak. O T O
falconelly 4 years ago
haha
gklr 4 years ago
logical 'truth' or consistency is actually normative because it says what is not fallacious, and what is, and obviously implies that you should not be fallacious or our words dont make sense. so you might mean something more specific, like ethics?
sickliberal 4 years ago
I look at logical truth as descriptive, not normative. It describes inventions of mind rather than discoveries like contingent truths do, but contingent truths also are not fallacious. What ought to be, is not what is necessarily the case. My position is that no normative statement is true.
gklr 4 years ago
lol nice!!
Nragedx 4 years ago
lol
TheOptimisticSkeptic 4 years ago
No begging allowed! LOL
Brainmold 4 years ago
help me o b 1 your my only , sorry : ) very good
42ADENT 4 years ago
LOL! Oh my! That was brilliant, Greg.
Say, I'm not sure about normative language not being logically necessary, in the sense that normative language might be the content of a logical proof. But here's an idea I wanted to bounce off of you: if implication is a sort of normativity, wouldn't the fact that p -> q can be translated into ~(p.~q) be logical evidence of the unnecessity of normativity?
azrienoch 4 years ago
Az,
The necessity of their equivilance wouldn't itself be evidence of normative unnecessity for me, it's that no normative statement is logically necessary, even though they are necessarily equivilant. An implication doesn't become a necessity because it has necessary equivilance. This would be like saying beliefs are true because it's true we believe them.
gklr 4 years ago