now if I say - 'I should do x'
how is this different from - 'I do x'?
one - there may in fact be no difference
i.e. - when what I do is what I should do
but in such a case - why the 'should statement'?
it is redundant
'should' it seems - refers to a possible -
but unrealized state of affairs
still the question - how does 'should' arise?
if I am a smoker - why would I think I should stop smoking?
to avoid health problems (let us say)
(as a possible though not realized state of affairs)
ultimately - this question comes down to how you see
yourself in the world
in the case of smoking perhaps a conflict between
hedonism and the claims of medical science
your views on smoking will be defined by which way you jump here
so - 'should' arises as an expression of conflict about possible -
unrealized but (realizable) realities
here realities are factual realities
the language of 'is' - is the language of actual reality
when we question - (actual) reality - with an 'ought'
we are talking about a possible state of affairs of the
given reality
we are not invoking non-natural phenomenon in so doing
it's about wanting a change to ourselves - our world -
or relation to the world -
it is to say e.g. - given what I know or think or hold
to be true etc. - I want a different state of affairs
'should' may appear to be intuitive - it is in fact an
expression of a world view - that has not come to be but
is desired on the basis of perceived or reasoned inadequacies -
or absences or failures - in the present
the imperative is a wish in the midst of metaphysical conflict
the statement of this:
'I should do x'
'you should do x'
is on the face of it virtually metaphysically illiterate
for it is non-explanatory
it appears to have no content
(and this is never the case)
it is as with all demands - a conclusion - without an argument
this form should not perplex us
