[lit-ideas] Re: The Deontic And The Boulemaic
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:29:08 -0700
It's best to deal with operators, like "deontic" and 'boulemaic' (the good,
the teleological, the aretaic).
Could you possibly mean 'boulomaic'?
I'm confused. When and where is it best to deal with 'operators' like
these? The sentence itself is ill-formed. What have the words in
parentheses to do with what comes before them? Are they simply additions
to the first pair you mention or are they somehow interpretations of them?
The boulemaic wants to say (and succeds in saying something true, too) that
the deontic IMPORTANTLY reduces to the boulemaic.
I like icecream
_______________
I ought to eat icecream
This makes no sense to me. Even if some magico-logician could parse this
as an argument (it looks like a practical syllogism dredged up off the
coast of the Adriatic, with some parts broken and others missing), it
would not follow that just because someone likes something, he ought to
do it. Hannibal Lecter comes to mind.
Robert Paul,
full of questions
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: