undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbarrkel8y ago0 comments

How did you get to normative judgements from a positive assertion?

That is, how did you get from a description of what is, to inferring what the author thinks ought to be?

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

dragonwriter8y ago· 2 in thread

> How did you get to normative judgements from a positive assertion?

The description of things a logically incompatible (“oxymoron”) means that support for one logically excludes support for the others. Thiel's description of capitalist democracy as oxymoronic in the presence of women voting excludes support for the combination.

(Though his other statements outside of the one in question suggests democracy, not women's suffrage within it, is the piece he has come to oppose in light of perceiving the incompatibility.)

barrkelOP8y ago

You're mixing up "support" as a logic connective with "support" as an opinion. Those are two different words.

A leg may support a table. That doesn't mean it has an opinion on the matter.

dragonwriter8y ago

> You're mixing up "support" as a logic connective with "support" as an opinion.

No, I'm not. I'm using it strictly in the latter sense. (I am, of course, assuming that Thiel has a minimum degree of rationality, and thus does not hold positions he himself describes as logically incompatible.)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse