Yea, I agree.
Von doesn’t understand how just because a watch keeps time doesn’t tell us what a watch should be used to keep time for. For example, if a group of people were discussing what should a single watch keep time for among multiple options, Von wouldn’t have a way to suggest which option to pick.
That sort of indecisiveness doesn’t help when deciding what decision should be made.
Yes he would, and his suggestion would be based on what is. If the people in the group were a bunch of gym rats, he might suggest that they keep time to schedule workouts. If some of them are on a diet, he could suggest that they keep time to schedule their meals. Why would everyone in the group need to choose the same option? One watch can be used for many different purposes.
Is a watch meant to keep time, or is let’s say, a silver watch, meant to be melted down and made into a spoon?
Also I think goodness can stand on its own two feet, it doesn’t need purpose. This is incomprehensible, but, if you can think about it, what I’m saying is that if and when or where ever things are good, those things will always be good. The events in time are permanent.
As a spoon, the melted down watch can no longer judge time. The purpose of a good spoon is to scoop food well, but, that is a purpose we assign which involes people and how they relate to objects. The person wants a good spoon, and that is why there is such a thing as a good spoon. Morality is desire, and meaning is desire. Very similar to will.
What time you set your watch for has nothing to do with what a watch is. If someone has a watch on the eastern seaboard, and someone else on the western, the fact that they set their times differently doesn’t mean that we’re not still talking about watches. A watch is something that keeps time, no matter what you keep time for----and therefore, a good watch is something that ought to keep time.
That is a metaphysical statement. Good watches are real things, according to you. People who crave a separation between concepts and “real things” will probably disagree, but I don’t have big problems with it.
Uh, I don’t believe it was…
Sure, I own a good watch.
If I don’t care about keeping time, or if I have a better way of keeping time, a watch might make a decent bookmark, or a way of bundling some sticks together.
Anyway, a watch is an example of producing an is from a want, and nothing more. Getting this completely backwards takes some real talent.
I remember my contributions to that thread fondly. 
Then you’re talking about a bookmark that looks like a watch. I own a compass that looks like a watch. It was not made to keep time, and so it’s not a watch. I don’t use it to keep time, and so I don’t use it as a watch.
Meaning of objects is metaphysical philosophy. The meaning is like the higher level understanding of reality. It’s the ontology of purpose and qualities. It’s all about true natures of a certain sort, so often as either a value or moral factor as well.
Sure, I own a good watch.
Why do you have to call it a good watch instead of calling it a watch that functions perfectly?
“Good”, that word is used in many ways by philosophers and non-philosophers.
However,
Since you say it is compatible, I will assume you meant for the idea to be compatable.
I may be speaking about the good of the masses, not the true good.
Do you feel you know what the true good is?
And if your contention is that a leather strap with a lump in the middle, used to hold a bundle of sticks together is not a watch because it’s not used to tell time in that instance, then all you’ve managed to say is that we should name things according to their particular function, rather than their generic function (a forgotten, unused watch might then be called “useless thingamajig” until remembered and used to tell time). And obviously that would be not only completely bizarre, but it would have nothing to do with the is-ought problem.
Ah, you snuck this in. My previous post addresses this.
Anon, he said his watch stuff was compatible with my example.
You might be miss interpreting him.
If he’s talking about truly good watches pragmatically, that means the watch doesn’t have to be absolutely true, it means that we can judge a watch as good when it tells the right time. This is just common word use. It is not special or certain philosophical word use.
Well if he’s confusing “typical purpose for lots of people I know” with “inherent purpose” then all he’s doing is defining “watch” as something that tells time. He’s not talking about is-ought at all.
Philosophers must change the meaning of names, because as they are now, many words are philosophically unsound.
This means he is referring to a high quality paradigm of good and bad, purpose, etc.
Really? I’m afraid I’ve lost you, Dan.
From the thread von Rivers linked:
Similarly, I noted recently that von Rivers claims there is a single “right action” in any given situation. Divorcing creative action from the moral realm in such a way leads to an impoverished, and even miserable existence. I really think so. I think this is an important topic. How would you feel if there was a single right action, right now. What would you do? How could you go forward? I guess you’ve have to beg Jesus’ forgiveness and admit that you’re evil and ignorant or something.
There’s a difference between pragmatic words and perfect words.
Pragmatic words are like this:
“That woman almost hit me with her car, she is a bitch.”
Now, she may be many things, but the sentence only states she is a bitch.
The statement is not perfect, but it is meant to be quickly used as a practical idea.
That is why some words are either pragmatic, or something similar.
Some people at ILP expect perfect words. That usually doesn’t end well.
You’ve lost me? How so?
I’m also waiting for von’s response to all of this.
Meaning and purpose is as plastic as liquid metal. It can be forged in many ways.
Before something is a watch, it is metal, and the battery is a compound, if it has a battery.
When does it become a watch? Or a good watch?
That is when we make it so, and say so, or think so.
That’s not perfect truth, it is instead brief meaning. Common use of words and meanings.
There is not exactly a single right action, but there is non-exactly a pretty good choice of action all the time.
Is von an absolutist? If not, then you may have to change how you interpret what he writes.
If he’s not, he tries extraordinarily hard to look like one. He’s certainly not a pragmatist.