Meaning of life?

[christx11]

The art of not giving a f**k sorry, I'm in a mood today

I understand where you are coming from, but I think it comes down to the exact opposite. I think the bankruptcy is ultimately driven by love of that part of existence that is indestructible, the non-physical, what matters is the soul and our pursuit and our learning then shifts.

 

[Michal]

Below citation is from the article from Arc's blog and article link: Why? The Purpose of the Universe

• You can’t move in reasoning from facts that aren’t about value, to facts that are about value or what you ought to do. There is a gap between "is" and "ought".
• Reason ought to be the slave of the passions. If you desire to pursue some goal, you ought to pursue it.

Do you see it? What Goff saw was that making the inference in point 2 violates the Is-Ought gap principle. Hume inferred that that job of reason is to help us best achieve the goals our feelings have set for us.

Do you see it? No - I do not.
Could You help me understand this?

In above example of contradiction in Hume's principle is-ought that one cannot bridge the gap between facts and moral values. How in above example Reason is bridging this gap? I do not get that.

Some other questions if I may get Your assistance:
Facts that are not about value? So for Hume all facts about external world were not about value?
For example Hume would not say bad or good about genocide in Gaza?
But he would say that for Palestinians their genocide is bad because they have feelings that are making them value this fact such a way?
If he had no feelings himself about this fact he would not assign any value for it?

 

[Michal]

You can’t move in reasoning from facts that aren’t about value, to facts that are about value?

You can't move? In reasoning? Move in reasoning? ... means what? what kind of reasoning would there be to illustrate/show example of it?
I cannot move from: it is now raining and I am getting wet TO I ought to open my umbrella to protect me from getting completely wet.
Or what?
Or maybe rain umbrella thing is OK because there is not yet value assigned?
Otherwise no "Oughts" would be possible?

Help :D

 

[Michal]

How Hume was thinking? And why Goff found this particular set contradictory?

Is this because: I desire this goal - is a statement IS. I ought to pursue this goal - is an OUGHT statement. What connects them is BECAUSE: because I desire, I ought to... They connect and therefore they contradict Hume's idea about unbridgeable gap?