I read your post and it inspired some thoughts. It was too long to include in a comment, so I'll attach my post in case you wanted to check it out.
Quick Teaser:
You're playing a game of "meaning versus gibberish" within a 3rd-person descriptive field.
And while I agree with your overall intuitions = we differ in many ways as well.
Because what I am presenting is a Mathematical Constraint (Grammatical / Relational Tautology) on intelligibility itself = flips the whole board on everything you said.
It's an inversion.
2nd Person Address = Relational Encounter.
The part of your post which caught my eye the most = how you used the word "unintelligibility."
I'm identifying this as a Category Error.
Your view = normativity is a technical term that fails to refer = "unanalyzable" because it’s empty.
My claim = normativity is not a "primitive concept" = it's the Ontological Strike of the world hitting the nervous system.
In other words: you're trying to define "light" while standing in the middle of a sunbeam = claiming the sunbeam is unintelligible because you can't find a descriptive box big enough to hold it.
Here's the issue:
Relation + Distinction = Intelligibility.
Words are Deeds: They "do unto others."
Debt Structure: To speak is to enter a contract. To deny the contract while using the words of the contract causes the Denial to Collapse.
You offer: descriptive analysis, linguistic skepticism.
But the shared premises required you to even write his article = The Golden Rule of Communication.
"I Am That I Am" = the only self-referential point that doesn't rely on a prior abstraction.
Your claim of "incredulity" isn't an intellectual failure = but a relational withdrawal.
Overall, your choice to label normativity "unintelligible" = is an attempt to "separate the word from its Source" to maintain control.
I share your skepticism about atomic normativium, but I don't really see how it's unintelligible. Given that I have some cultural understanding of what a norm is, and the lived experience of feeling its binding power, my feeling is that if someone were to claim that something is irreducibly normative, I understand what they mean. I wouldn't *agree*, mostly for the same reasons you give - it's not the best or simplest explanation for the known facts, etc., but that doesn't make it unintelligible as far as I can tell!
"Philosophers are arguing at one or more steps removed from more fundamental disagreements, and either don’t realize it or don’t care. This makes about as much sense as people competing to see who will 'win the game,' but nobody agrees on what the game is or what the rules are."
I think this is mostly true, although there is enough agreement about the game to understand that there are CERTAIN WAYS of doing things, and if you don't do things in those ways, no one will listen. This is the "twentieth century" stuff you talked about earlier. If you don't do it in the normal ways, you actually just can't publish most of the time, at least in the journals that are taken as the common currency of scholarship in this field.
Thanks a lot, Lance. Reading your work helped me deepen my understanding of irreducible normative reasons. I think it's a baseless metaphysical belief that helps found certain moral realist views. It's just a dogma of a certain belief system. It's unintelligible by design from a metaethical point of view, but it's totally okay from the point of view of a believer. I think there are just some realists who cannot fathom not believing in that. And that's why you get so many accusations of being disingenuous. For some people, normativity is not about analyzing actions, but forcing people to do or not do some things.
Those who accuse you of disingenuity, dishonesty, and bad faith are likely unfamiliar with your broader work. Across YouTube and Substack, you are (in my opinion) obviously candid and consistently diligent. It is unfortunate that, despite this, those accusing you nevertheless poison the well. Great essay!
Hey Lance,
I read your post and it inspired some thoughts. It was too long to include in a comment, so I'll attach my post in case you wanted to check it out.
Quick Teaser:
You're playing a game of "meaning versus gibberish" within a 3rd-person descriptive field.
And while I agree with your overall intuitions = we differ in many ways as well.
Because what I am presenting is a Mathematical Constraint (Grammatical / Relational Tautology) on intelligibility itself = flips the whole board on everything you said.
It's an inversion.
2nd Person Address = Relational Encounter.
The part of your post which caught my eye the most = how you used the word "unintelligibility."
I'm identifying this as a Category Error.
Your view = normativity is a technical term that fails to refer = "unanalyzable" because it’s empty.
My claim = normativity is not a "primitive concept" = it's the Ontological Strike of the world hitting the nervous system.
In other words: you're trying to define "light" while standing in the middle of a sunbeam = claiming the sunbeam is unintelligible because you can't find a descriptive box big enough to hold it.
Here's the issue:
Relation + Distinction = Intelligibility.
Words are Deeds: They "do unto others."
Debt Structure: To speak is to enter a contract. To deny the contract while using the words of the contract causes the Denial to Collapse.
You offer: descriptive analysis, linguistic skepticism.
But the shared premises required you to even write his article = The Golden Rule of Communication.
"I Am That I Am" = the only self-referential point that doesn't rely on a prior abstraction.
Your claim of "incredulity" isn't an intellectual failure = but a relational withdrawal.
Overall, your choice to label normativity "unintelligible" = is an attempt to "separate the word from its Source" to maintain control.
Which is the exact thing you criticize in others.
Post here if you want to check it:
https://narrowdoor.substack.com/p/intelligibility?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
I share your skepticism about atomic normativium, but I don't really see how it's unintelligible. Given that I have some cultural understanding of what a norm is, and the lived experience of feeling its binding power, my feeling is that if someone were to claim that something is irreducibly normative, I understand what they mean. I wouldn't *agree*, mostly for the same reasons you give - it's not the best or simplest explanation for the known facts, etc., but that doesn't make it unintelligible as far as I can tell!
(Smirks in Mandik) So you could say you’re an “irreducibly normative reasons quietist”?
"Philosophers are arguing at one or more steps removed from more fundamental disagreements, and either don’t realize it or don’t care. This makes about as much sense as people competing to see who will 'win the game,' but nobody agrees on what the game is or what the rules are."
I think this is mostly true, although there is enough agreement about the game to understand that there are CERTAIN WAYS of doing things, and if you don't do things in those ways, no one will listen. This is the "twentieth century" stuff you talked about earlier. If you don't do it in the normal ways, you actually just can't publish most of the time, at least in the journals that are taken as the common currency of scholarship in this field.
Great post!
Maybe you answer this objection elsewhere, but isn't your analysis of "ought/should" subject to the open-question argument?
Should we be consistent with our values?
Or,
You shouldn't be inconsistent with your values.
It doesn't necessarily mean the same as:
It is inconsistent with your values to be inconsistent with your values.
Do you think this shows at least that reasons are conceptually irreducible?
Thanks a lot, Lance. Reading your work helped me deepen my understanding of irreducible normative reasons. I think it's a baseless metaphysical belief that helps found certain moral realist views. It's just a dogma of a certain belief system. It's unintelligible by design from a metaethical point of view, but it's totally okay from the point of view of a believer. I think there are just some realists who cannot fathom not believing in that. And that's why you get so many accusations of being disingenuous. For some people, normativity is not about analyzing actions, but forcing people to do or not do some things.
Those who accuse you of disingenuity, dishonesty, and bad faith are likely unfamiliar with your broader work. Across YouTube and Substack, you are (in my opinion) obviously candid and consistently diligent. It is unfortunate that, despite this, those accusing you nevertheless poison the well. Great essay!