Can “what is” be determined by “what ought to be”?
No. Never.
“What ought to be” is Utopianism.
When people think they know the truth, great oppression upon the people necessarily follows. When “the ought to be” is societal, enormous loss of life (ultimate oppression) is possible.
This type of thinking is diabolical (Marxism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, etc.). It subverts actual problem solving (actual learning) and societal evolution.
“I think, therefore I am” is Descartes’s effort to establish, minimally, what is known (his existence, he hopes). Descartes believed, as do I, that absolute truth cannot be known. With his declaration, Descartes promoted an argument for his existence in a intellectual climate where nothing can be known absolutely. Yet the “I think, therefore I am” argument is not a persuasive argument. This is good news, because, for reason to exist (by definition), one can’t know any truth absolutely.
BUT, the fact that absolute truth cannot be known, does not mean that absolute truth does not exist. It does. The Utopianists (Marxism, Critical Theory, postmodernism, etc.) however, do not. Therefore, the Utopianists feel free to construct it. They narcissistically believe they “know” what is good, that is, “what ought to be”. As a result, these folks become the architects of nearly all wide-spread societal misery (oppression).
Defendable philosophy must arise out of a detailed definition for reason. Reason requires that one set forth some rules for determining what is true (many are possible). The definition for rationality makes absolute truth a first principle, and the fact that it cannot be known, a resulting outcome of the definition.
