> In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
> always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the
> ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or
> makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am
> surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
> propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not
> connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is
> imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this
> ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis
> necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same
> time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether
> inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others,
> which are entirely different from it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
>
> Rand is criticized for her outright rejection of David Hume's ideas at
> the foundations of her philosophy. Hume famously maintained, "No is
> implies an ought," but Rand disagreed by arguing that values are a ...

> In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
> always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the
> ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or
> makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am
> surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
> propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not
> connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is
> imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this
> ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis
> necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same
> time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether
> inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others,
> which are entirely different from it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
>
> Rand is criticized for her outright rejection of David Hume's ideas at
> the foundations of her philosophy. Hume famously maintained, "No is
> implies an ought," but Rand disagreed by arguing that values are a ...

> On Jan 29, 11:51

> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:46 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss

>>...Kant
>>obscures it in mountains of obfuscating verbiage which is designed to
>>make you think that surely it is you who don't understand his great
>>insights.

>
> If it's so obscure then how do you know Kant is engaging in
> concept-stealing?

> On Jan 30, 11:03 pm, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>

>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:46 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss

>>>...Kant
>>>obscures it in mountains of obfuscating verbiage which is designed to
>>>make you think that surely it is you who don't understand his great
>>>insights.

>

>> If it's so obscure then how do you know Kant is engaging in
>> concept-stealing?

>
> He shows his hand often enough when it is unavoidable - and then, my
> deal Mal, you graciously confirm it time and time again.

> On Jan 31, 8:18 am, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:

>> On Jan 30, 11:03 pm, Malrassic Park hotmail.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:46 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss

>>>>...Kant
>>>>obscures it in mountains of obfuscating verbiage which is designed to
>>>>make you think that surely it is you who don't understand his great
>>>>insights.

>>

>>> If it's so obscure then how do you know Kant is engaging in
>>> concept-stealing?

>>
>> He shows his hand often enough when it is unavoidable - and then, my
>> deal Mal, you graciously confirm it time and time again.

>
> Even the most profound irrationalists eventually will seek the
> endorsement of reason to rationalize their irrationalism - Kant, for
> all his academic verbiage, no less than patently raving mystics. ...

> Immortalist posted:
>
> In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have
> always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary
> ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes
> observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am
> surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of
> propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not
> connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible;
> but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought
> not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it
> shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason
> should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new
> relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different
> from it.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> Every time I see that paragraph, it tickles me. Read it carefully and ...

>
>"Malrassic Park" hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:14i2q3d63aeon0jkpcvk55p5corgetrf24@4ax.com...

>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:32:46 -0800 (PST), Fred Weiss
>> papertig.com> wrote...

> On Jan 30, 4:32 pm, TRISEC...@webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote:

>> Hume points out that moral philosophers present "what is" then translate
>> that to 'what ought to be". He doesn't see, he can't imagine, 'what
>> seems altogether inconceivable', how they can (legitimately) do that. If
>> that doesn't imply that they ought not do that, what's the point of the
>> paragraph?

>
> That's a truly absurd argument.

> Logic and reason are exactly about
> determining what is 'legitimate' according to the rules of logic and
> reason. We begin by accepting those rules. Hume's statement is
> perfectly correct as an observation that 'ought' is outside the system
> of logic and reason.