British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Aardvark · 08-08-2008, 09:52 AM

DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago.

Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be.

We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be.

I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh.

Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates.

The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting.

Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons.

08-08-2008, 09:52 AM	#154 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,918	DED, The separation of the 'is' and the 'ought' is a philosophical concept I picked up in jurisprudence lectures (was I really awake?) many years ago. Basically a lot of people fail to differentiate between an evidence based 'is' - reality, what actually is - and an opinion based 'ought' - what they think ought to be. We are all guilty of not making the distinction and say things as fact that are really opinion, what we would like them to be. I try, when I am completely awake and sober, to actually think about this distinction before I open my mouth or put finger to keyboard. Most people sub-consciously do. The problem we all have is that in moments of anger, passion, tiredness, or where we lack our normal lucidity, mouth opens or keyboard is struck before we've fully engaged our brain. This leads to normally thoughtful people, who make considered posts full of concise facts and researched or supported material, writing utter tosh. Sometimes it is not always possible to see the immediate distinction between the 'is' and the 'ought' because we state something we believe to be true since it sounds like it ought to be that way. This is how urban legends get circulated or how we end up with 'send three and fourpence we're going to a dance' moments. It also leads to the absurd situation where people state facts about UKIP matters, but naysayers 'shout' them down because the situation really oughtn't to be like that as it is not in keeping with their view of how UKIP operates. The people who, almost by force of habit, defend UKIP do so because in the main they are not seeking to cover up problems, but because the situation ought not be as it is and they don't want to believe it is so. Most are well meaning people, probably the overwhelming majority, but there are a few who know things are wrong, know they should not be wrong and probably know that they are culpable for the situation, but would rather distort facts, shout down perceived opponents and conceal the truth from the bulk of the membership lest they be found wanting. Douglas, I think you are one of those who see the best in UKIP for good reasons. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008