>facts about what is do not logically entail what ought to beIs he correct or are people correct when they say that the existence of empathy and desire prove that humanism is fundamentally correct?
>>25201335I don’t see how your second statement is antithetical to the first
>>25201335There's an additional element - value or interest.
>>25201335In classical logic it it really simply doesn't follow, but it could follow in other logics.
>>25201335i think it's very obvious that he's making a distinction between what is and what ought to be-empathy and desire fall under the category of opinions about what ought to be
>>25201335He is obviously correct. A deductive argument cannot have anything in its conclusion that is not in its premises.
the blackpill: hume and schopenhauer are both correct. "compassion is ethics" means that the ability to be ethical is completely dependent on a person's ability to empathize (i.e., their intellect)
>>25201450Except empathy is highly biased and not based on intellect or reason at all.>>25201341The statement "empathy exists" does not lead to the conclusion that it is good or the standard of ethics
>I is, therefore I ought
>>25201662Saying that “the existence of something proves that something is fundamentally correct” is not the same as saying that “just because a thing is a thing doesn’t mean that’s what it is at its highest potential”
>>25201880sorry, by not the same I mean the precluding statement is not negated by the following statement
