This is Part 2/5 of the "Philosophy of Science Series: Natural Human Philosophy" (a 5-part series integrating natural science—neuroscience, evolutionary biology, archaeology, ecology, and genetics—to resolve longstanding philosophical questions about human nature, ethics, existence, and purpose). Title: RESOLVING PHILOSOPHY'S TWO-MILLENNIA IMPASSE: How Transgression Creates Normative Space Abstract: Philosophy has debated fundamental questions—free will, moral realism, the nature of consciousness—for over two millennia without achieving consensus. We argue this stagnation stems from two insurmountable logical dilemmas: the inability to guarantee the truth of deductive premises through philosophical reasoning alone, and Additionally, the impossibility of deriving normative "ought" from descriptive "is" (Hume's problem). These dilemmas are not epistemological puzzles but structural flaws in speculative philosophy's methodology. Building on Natural Human Philosophy's (NHP) framework—which posits that Homo sapiens underwent transgression (partial escape from ecosystem and genetic constraints) enabled by unique brain adaptors (the Third Nature) —our analysis suggests how these dilemmas can be resolved. For Dilemma 1, we propose that grounding philosophical premises in scientific theories (neuroscience, archaeology, ecology, genetics) provides empirical warrant rather than relying on speculation. For Dilemma 2, our analysis suggests that while Hume's logical gap remains unbridgeable, human transgression creates genuine normative space absent in pre-transgression life, making ethical questions non-vacuous. we introduce the concept of principled oughts—normative statements derived from scientific principles that indicate conformity to natural laws—showing that ethics and engineering share the same logical structure. We trace the historical divergence between philosophy and science (17th century), explain why natural science avoided these dilemmas (empirical constraints, falsifiability), and demonstrate how NHP's approach provides error-correction mechanisms absent in traditional philosophy. Our framework offers a path for philosophy to become progressive and consensus-reaching, transforming it from speculation to rigorous empirical inquiry. For over two millennia, philosophy has failed to achieve consensus on fundamental questions due to two insurmountable logical dilemmas: the unprovable premise problem in deductive reasoning and Hume's is-ought gap. This paper demonstrates how Natural Human Philosophy (NHP) resolves these impasses by grounding philosophy in empirical natural science. Central to the resolution is Human Transgression—the dual escape of Homo sapiens from ecosystem constraints (~60–70 kya) and genetic determinism (~12 kya) —which created normative space: a domain of genuine choice, moral agency, and meaning-making beyond biological programming. This breakthrough transforms speculative philosophy into a progressive, falsifiable enterprise aligned with natural laws. Drawing on multidisciplinary evidence, the paper shows how transgression enables the emergence of normative phenomena, bridging descriptive facts and prescriptive ethics. It builds directly on Part 1's core framework (Third Nature and Cultural Cloud) and sets the stage for subsequent parts on moral definitions, philosophical reinterpretations, and unification of social sciences. This preprint advances the NHP paradigm: philosophy's path forward lies not in abandoning its questions, but in addressing them with the rigor and cumulative progress of natural science. Supplementary materials: - Any additional figures, tables, or neurobiological details (included in this upload if applicable) - External anonymous peer review excerpt (provided in separate supplementary file for context; full version at SSRN link below) Keywords: philosophy of science, natural human philosophy, NHP, human transgression, normative space, Hume's guillotine, is-ought problem, unprovable premises, evolutionary anthropology, gene-culture coevolution, Ernst Mayr, Edward O. Wilson Related resources: - This is Part 2/5 of a 5-part series (complete). - See Part 1 at https: //doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 18664608 - See Part 3 at https: //doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 18664797 - See Part 4 at https: //doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 18664901 - See Part 5 at https: //doi. org/10. 5281/zenodo. 18664950- External peer review commentary on the series: https: //papers. ssrn. com/sol3/papers. cfm? abstractᵢd=6214758 ("Note: Supplementary peer review excerpt is from the series overview (full at SSRN) ") License: Creative Commons Attribution 4. 0 International (CC BY 4. 0) Version: 1. 0 (February 2026)
Yuan et al. (Tue,) studied this question.