The “Such/Lack Solution” to the “Is/Ought Problem” by O.G. Rose

“Dialectical Ethics” by O.G. Rose explores how Hume deconstructions “is-ness” in favor of “such-ness,” and then how Hume establishes that we can only determine “oughtness” based on “such-ness.” We tend to associate Hume with deconstructing morality in general, but really Hume deconstructs ethical systems which aren’t grounded in a common and particular way of life. Generally, Hume’s entire project can be seen as an attack on “rationality” which doesn’t participate in the life, experiences, and/or “truth” which it rationalizes about, because this leads to totalitarianism (how exactly is explored in “Deconstructing Common Life” by O.G. Rose).

Thomas Jockin and Johannes A. Niederhauser discussed differences between Aristotle and Heidegger, and Mr. Jockin noted that in Heidegger denying that “things have an essence,” Heidegger makes things vulnerable to the very technological (or “metaphysical”) thinking from which Heidegger wants to protect “beings.” Heidegger doesn’t want the world to be reduced to “standing reserve,” but do things entail an essence which suggests they shouldn’t be so used? The conversation is tremendous, and I suggest giving the whole discussion a listen (it’s called “Heidegger vs. Aristotle on Being, Substance, Causality”)...

On Medium:

Substack:

For more by Thomas Jockin:

For more by O.G. Rose:

Photo by Charlie Deets

[attention]

I just recently started rereading Treatise of Human Nature, and have not yet gotten to this problem, which, If I remember correctly is somewhere near the beginning of book three. So apologies if my perspective is somewhat skewed by separate interpretations from Hume--but anyway, how lack implies an ought, how it is described here, is in a similar relationship to how I see immediate intuition and imagination--Lacanian non-linguistic aspect of the psyche--although, of course, there is no epistemological justification, which may indicate the reasons for a variety of outcomes, I could see this filling a gap that deals with particular cases (the cat in this example). This is kind of a half thought--sorry, as I am sure it sounds like one as well. Haha.

[antonfildan]

Not very convincing.
I doubt Your szory about Hume arguing the is/ought problem from political liberalism.
Your differentiation between between is and such does not make much difference.

But mainly with the term lacking you try to smuggle in a value jugement w/o calling it such.

So in the end this presumed is/ought solution ends in word games in the same way as Sam Harris attemt.