more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
If you can't squeeze an 'ought' from an 'is', then the feature of normativity will prevent the reduction of Aboutness.
Gist of Idea
Rule-following can't be reduced to the physical
Source
Scott Sturgeon (Matters of Mind [2000], Intro)
Book Ref
Sturgeon,Scott: 'Matters of Mind' [Routledge 2000], p.2
A Reaction
A dubious argument. Hume's point is that no rational inference will get you from is to ought, but you can get there on a whim. I don't see normativity as being so intrinsically magical that it is irreducible.
| 2534 | Mindless bodies are zombies, bodiless minds are ghosts [Sturgeon] |
| 2537 | Types are properties, and tokens are events. Are they split between mental and physical, or not? [Sturgeon] |
| 2532 | Intentionality isn't reducible, because of its experiential aspect [Sturgeon] |
| 2533 | Rule-following can't be reduced to the physical [Sturgeon] |
| 2535 | The main argument for physicalism is its simple account of causation [Sturgeon] |
| 2536 | Do facts cause thoughts, or embody them, or what? [Sturgeon] |