Author Information
Open or Close
- School of Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National U, Canberra, Australia
*Corresponding author:
Ertürk Demirel, School of Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National U, Canberra, Australia
Received: November 29, 2019; Published: December 09, 2019
DOI: 10.32474/SJO.2019.03.000162
Full Text
PDF
To view the Full Article Peer-reviewed Article PDF
Abstract
Elsewhere I tried to show that Nietzsche has a Human solution to “Is vs. Ought” problem [1]. His notion of causality as free will is Human causality, viz., habit; his picture of the mind is epiphenomenal, with clear Human traces as he rejected noumenal self and “I” as a given; he takes “Is” to be type-facts, facts about what character one is, and “Ought” to be the second-nature of human beings
Introduction|
The Rules of “Ought”|
“Ought” Based on Constitutive Rules|
“Is” in “Ought”|
References|