(June 12, 2019 at 7:12 pm)SenseMaker007 Wrote: Okay, so if it's not identical, then what's the difference? How does non-natural knowledge differ from a priori knowledge (and perhaps I can just ignore my quibble regarding the impossibility of entirely a priori knowledge, for the time being).
It's not that it's non-natural knowledge per se, it's that goodness refers to a non-natural object. ie... goodness is not identical with happiness (Happiness is a natural object.)
Moore Wrote:The chapter began by dividing the views to be criticised into (a) those which, supposing good to be defined by reference to some supersensible reality, conclude that the sole good is to be found in such a reality, and may therefore be called Metaphysical, (b) those which assign a similar position to some natural object, and may therefore be called Naturalistic.http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-...chapter-ii
