Fact/Value Dichotomy by Putnam & its Arise in History of Philosophy (Essay Sample)

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS WITH REFERENCE OF: PUTNAM, H., 2002. THE COLLAPSE OF THE FACT/VALUE DICHOTOMY AND OTHER ESSAYS. HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1) What is the fact/value dichotomy according to Putnam?
According to Putnam, issues that are presumed as facts are not at the same time presumed to be value judgement. Although there has been a great misconception between the two aspects. Therefore, he has argued for the two aspects to be mutually exclusive and thus existence of one event leads to non-existence of the other. In addition, value judgement statements are subjective and thus have are not factual claims. On the other hand, the author suggest that facts are statements of truth. The author in his assessment argues that fasts represents “is” while value represents “what ought” (Hilary 2002, p. 24)
Throughout the history, the author compiles the different systems and dichotomies, their entanglement and their collapse. The fact/value dichotomy was widely related to the analytical-synthetic dichotomy. From the past, the dichotomy has been seen to explain the matter of existence that are real and true with those of ideas and judgement.
From the discussion, the author pints put that the dichotomy is all about what is true or false, should be testable using observational sentences, it is an omnipresent, all important gulf and thus cognitively does not make sense.
Therefore as the author suggest
“Facts/value dichotomy is not a distinction but a thesis namely that ethics is not about matters of fact”. (Hilary 2002, P.34).
Hence a fact is said to be a sense of impression.
(2) Why did the dichotomy of facts and values arise in the history of philosophy?
The dichotomy has developed widely through history. From the analytical and synthetic dimensions leading to tautologies. By the year 1951, leading to the synthetic-analytical dichotomy. The author argues that throughout history, one cannot infer an “is” for an “ought”. According to the philosophical authors, a concept can only be developed from one of its kind. Therefore, value cannot lead to facts and verse versa. In addition, the metaphysical dichotomy as well as the development of the concepts have been based on philosophy of humans. In addition, the author argues that development of a matter of fact could not lead to an “ought” which expresses the philosophical approaches of defining what “is” and what “ought” to be to give a distinction to development from the past to the recent.
The dichotomy has been a point of discussion for many philosophers including; Home, Dewey, Kant, Quine
The Author argues that “facts/values is a dualism that is of a philosophical nature which has been a point of discussion for many” (Hilary 2002). The facts/ values have taken up the philosophical approach where there is need for identification, diagnosis, analysis from a thinking perspective.
The dichotomy has been for the year referred as an omnipresent concept which has application in all areas that have meaningful judgement. In addition, in cases, there is not clear distinction in the judgement that was to be make like is the case of facts/values, a dualism may exist leafing to formation of a metaphysical bogey which is a philosophical approach to understanding. Through this philosophy approach, problems would be solved.
The author argues that the dichotomy is philosophical in nature and it is obligatory and as such facts/values are of a natural kind. The dichotomy as inferred in the text appears to solve philosophical problems, it tells us what people are thinking and what they have in common, and the characteristics are of a natural kind. This argument is inferred from philosophical theories and background of human. The facts/value integrates into a metaphysical dichotomy with paradigms hard to distinguish. In addition, all the arguments in the text are in line with ethical principles and behaviour which has philosophical bases.
3) What reasons does Putnam offer to advance the claim that facts