No one has ever once proven a normative statement to be true. In the thousands of years that we've been studying physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, logic, etc. we've come up with many uncontroversially true statements that have led us to new problems and, thus, new true statements.
We've been studying ethics and aesthetics and have never come across a true statement.
Objective normativity is just as mystical (if not more) than god, and yet some of you dumbasses still believe in it.
we've come across truer statements
>>7826176
>Objective normativity is just as mystical (if not more) than god
Yeah, it's called ideological power discourse. And it's all oppressive bullshit.
>No one has ever once proven a normative statement to be true.
Premise #1. Earth is not flat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Earth is not flat or OP should stop being a flaming homosexual.
Let "Earth is not flat." be P, and "OP should stop being a flaming homosexual." be Q. Then we have:
P
.:. P v Q
Proof of P v Q: Suppose ~(P v Q). Then, ~P and ~Q. But we have P and ~P. Contradiction. Thus we have proved P v Q. In other words, we have proved a normative statement which, as it happens, is true.
Now stop posting.
>>7826176
>some of you dumbasses still believe in it
Are you saying I shouldn't?
>>7826216
Good attempt at some logic, but I think you're misunderstanding what a normative claim is bud
>>7826229
So he's saying that we ought not to believe in normative claims, which is a normative claim itself? Interesting...
>>7826229
el oh el
>>7826241
No, it's probably just you. A normative claim is a moral claim; and a moral claim is any claim that contains a "should", or a "must", or a "wrong", or a "right", and so on. And indeed, "Earth is not flat or OP should stop being a flaming homosexual" qualifies as such.
This is really basic stuff; anybody who has studied metaethics knows about this. The first person ever to devise an actual, *logical* counterexample to Hume was Arthur Prior, a logician and a philosopher of the analytic tradition. The actual paper you can look for yourself; shouldn't take too long to find it.
>>7826242
I think he's talking about the ideal of normalcy, and how there is no objective sense of normalcy. Maybe? IDK.
>>7826216
I'm pretty sure Pythagoras discovered the Earth was round by measuring the degree difference of shadows at two different points in Greece.
>>7826176
If you want to get Humean here, Normativity is just recognized patterns that have been conditioned into your mind as "existing". For example, the only reason we think of a one legged man as abnormal is because we've been conditioned to expect the idea of "human" to contain the idea of "being a biped".
With Kant we find the foundational normative truths that you're claiming don't exist, though admittedly only within the phenomenal realm (see pic related for Kant's tables of Judgements and Categorical actualizatios of these judgements).
So yes, there are normative truths that serve as the foundation for how we cognize the world, but they are unfortunately limited to foundational truths about human consciousness and not objective reality.
>>7826271
That's besides the point though. "The Earth is not flat" is true regardless of what Pythagoras did some 20 centuries ago.
Did you even get the gist of the argument?
>>7826283
I guess not.
>>7826283
>is true
>true
>>7826267
You're good up until the part where you try to justify your claim as being normative
I know you're just trying to name drop your knowledge of the history and philosophy and demorgan's laws, but only half of your disjunction is normative - you're starting with a descriptive claim, but just tacking a normative one on as a disjunct afterward doesn't make the entire thing normative
>>7826681
Essentially, your proof is used propositional logic, why by definition in this instance can only accommodate descriptive claims. Your proof is 'correct' per se, but you can't just plug in a descriptive and normative claim for P and Q respectively - it just doesn't work that way
Good job name dropping Hume and basic logic proofs though, you just executed poorly
>>7826681
>but only half of your disjunction is normative
This doesn't disqualify it from being a normative statement just as the fact that one of its disjuncts (assuming for a moment that there are moral facts that bear t/f values and that OP shouldn't stop being a flaming homosexual), "OP should stop being a flaming homosexual", being false, doesn't make the compound statement, "Earth is not flat or OP should stop being a flaming homosexual", also false. If you can't see why this is so, consult the truth conditions for the inclusive 'or'.
Even though "Earth is not flat or OP should stop being a flaming homosexual" is a *compound* statement it is nevertheless a *statement*, a declarative statement, of the English language. As I remarked earlier, it is somewhat of an axiom in deontic logics and metaethics that any (one is enough) occurrence of "should" or "must" (etc.) in a well-formed statement of English renders the statement as a whole by definition a moral, and thus, a normative statement: there is no such restrictive clause that asserts that normative statements should have *atomic*, and only atomic, form (i.e. simply P). This is your invention and *you*, not me, must argue for it if you want to be taken seriously.
And I'm not trying to namedrop anything. If you can't function at this level then you probably don't know enough theory to be able to talk about it.
>it just doesn't work that way
Oh? And how *does* it work? Why don't you crack an egg of knowledge all over us.
'sactly OP.
this is why Marxism and the hyper-left will always fail.
Reality smacks them in the face.
>>7826176
>In the thousands of years that we've been studying physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, logic, etc. we've come up with many uncontroversially true statements that have led us to new problems and, thus, new true statements.
>We've been studying ethics and aesthetics and have never come across a true statement.
That's because in the physical sciences and mathematics there are empirical data, definitions, and axioms from which true statements are derived (though only the mathematicians should sleep soundly)
Philosophers don't agree on their definitions and don't adopt axioms, so their truths are subject to argument.
>>7826791
marxism was pretty specifically constructed to a positive socialism rather than the normative socialism he called "utopian"
you can disagree with it but calling it normative misunderstands what marx was doing pretty badly
>>7826783
Hey you're right bud! I was wrong and learned something so thank you
>>7826798
>only the mathematicians should sleep soundly
the ghost of kurt godel will haunt you in your sleep tonight.
If you haven't read Kant then you need to shut the fuck up and never post again.
>>7826176
>positivism
take a hike, pal
>>7826176
>No one has ever once proven a normative statement to be true.
let meOP is a faggot
>>7826814
I guess the idea being after the fall of the soviet union what it meant to be a 'marxist', you can disagree with the term they use to describe themselves, shifted.
>>7826176
An appropriate version of the golden rule is an example of a true normative statement.
>>7827178
he's asking you to prove it though, something simply being true doesn't automatically imply that it's provable
plus you beg the question by assuming that morals exist without arguing for them. only when you can successfully establish that morals exist can you say that the golden rule "is true".
>>7826814
Go to bed Otto Neurath. Or post more, pls.
>>7826271
Twas Eratosthenes
>>7827457
and it was in egypt
