Mar 14, 2026 09:28 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 15, 2026 12:55 AM by Magical Realist.)
“One of the great problems of philosophy, is the relationship between the realm of knowledge and the realm of values. Knowledge is what is; values are what ought to be. I would say that all traditional philosophies up to and including Marxism have tried to derive the 'ought' from the 'is.' My point of view is that this is impossible, this is a farce.”
― Jacques Monod
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason.”---David Hume
I've observed this myself in several philosophers. They always start out their magnus opus with a rigorous exemplification of their new metaphysics, endeavoring to account for the nature of Reality and Truth. But towards the end of the book, as if it were a last minute concession, they devote a few chapters on what all this means in terms of man's ethical values. Basically the question: "How then should we live our lives?" Plato does it. Kant does it. Hegel. Spinoza. Heidegger. Sartre. But what really can be accurately inferred from the nature of what is that tells us what ought to be? Where, iow, does knowledge intersect with value? Knowledge is simply what is, unembellished with any implications of what must be done and how we should live. Value otoh is always idealizing, projecting over what is what is good and right and needful. Are these two necessarily disparate from each other? And why? And to what extent does even modern science also conflate the "is" with "the ought to be"? The assumption of human progress? Climate change? Genetic engineering? The evils/virtues of AI? The idealization of "critical thinking"?
― Jacques Monod
“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation,’tis necessary that it shou’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it … [I] am persuaded, that a small attention [to this point] wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason.”---David Hume
I've observed this myself in several philosophers. They always start out their magnus opus with a rigorous exemplification of their new metaphysics, endeavoring to account for the nature of Reality and Truth. But towards the end of the book, as if it were a last minute concession, they devote a few chapters on what all this means in terms of man's ethical values. Basically the question: "How then should we live our lives?" Plato does it. Kant does it. Hegel. Spinoza. Heidegger. Sartre. But what really can be accurately inferred from the nature of what is that tells us what ought to be? Where, iow, does knowledge intersect with value? Knowledge is simply what is, unembellished with any implications of what must be done and how we should live. Value otoh is always idealizing, projecting over what is what is good and right and needful. Are these two necessarily disparate from each other? And why? And to what extent does even modern science also conflate the "is" with "the ought to be"? The assumption of human progress? Climate change? Genetic engineering? The evils/virtues of AI? The idealization of "critical thinking"?
