Comments on: Philosophical Folklore and the Reification Fallacy

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:52:47 +0000

The “is-ought fallacy” is another recurring ‘folk philosophy’ phrase – meaning “you can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’”, after Hume.

And it’s sort of true. You can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. But you can derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ and a goal.

For example, given the ‘is’-es of the rules of chess, and the goal to win the game, it follows pretty quickly that you ought not sacrifice your queen early in the game.

(Technically this is how natural-law morality works, assuming purposes/goals/telos for natures.)

By: Another Reader

Another Reader — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 15:53:44 +0000

I recall scribbling ‘reification’ in the list of academic buzzwords used-but-never-truly-understood in the margins of my undergraduate notebook.

Little did I know its role in the plot against poetry!

By: A Reader

A Reader — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 11:32:11 +0000

Commenting on this piece requires courage and/or humility.

As a possessor of common wisdom only, a member of the “folk,” I can grasp the precision, the geometric clarity! It is “refreshing” (used figuratively).