Well I didn’t say it was resolved, I just said I agreed with his assessment. I personally never really got the is/ought problem, so I’m not even convinced there is anything to resolve. I don’t have any problem deriving an ought from an is. Maybe I’m doing it wrong, I don’t know.
Allright, how do you derive an ought from an is? I don’t see how it’s possible.
Now, I do remember being involved in a topic with you about the exact same thing a while back. If i remember correctly your stance was that you could derive morals (ought) directly from things like pain and suffering (is). But that wasn’t sufficient for me, and some other posters, because you still need to inject an intentional element (an ought) into the equation, namely that pain should be avoided. I don’t know exactly what your answer to that was then?
Edit: yeah Von exactly, that thread 
You disagree that pain should be avoided if not for a greater benefit? I take that much as self evident.
It’s the easiest thing in the world. Take a watch, for example. A watch is something that keeps time. So what should a watch do? —That’s easy, Watson! A watch should keep time!
Why was that so easy, you ask? Well, it’s just because descriptive components are blended into normative language, and normative components are blended into descriptive language. You just can’t pull them apart. It’s enough to tell you that a printer prints, to know that a good printer is a printer that prints—and that how a printer ought to be is to be a thing that prints.
Humans are more complicated than watches and printers. That’s why philosophy and ethics is interesting… the basic questions of ethics (How ought I to live?) are really explorations of who you are, because once you find out who you are—your purposes and functions and etctera—you’ll know what you ought to do. It’ll just fall right out and be clear… because the descriptive and evaluative components of everything are blended together throughout.
Function = Purpose, according to Von. When a watch functions, it actuates its purpose. Purpose means something like a goal, and a goal is a meaning. All things in time and space have a certain eventual result, a process, and according to that idea, the eventuality is the meaning of the object.
Personally I try not to constrain meaning and purpose. I consider Von’s position as mildly constraining the meaning and purpose of all watches to only tell time, and nothing less, nothing more.
Well, you might think the purpose of a watch is to express your sense of style, and to tell time, and to bling, or whatever else. That’s all compatible with what I’ve said.
Oh, ok, thanks for explaining.
Normally meanings and shoulds are forms of restriction.
A dog must be a good dog, for example.
Restriction is filtering. The wisest people filter their own nature. That is restriction in its good form, however,
morality has been used to undermine and control people also.
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.