We'd simply do a survey of each individual's concept. — Terrapin Station

And out of a pool of opinions, they would synthesize a unified concept by accepting some, and rejecting others.

Nietzsche advocates asserting ourselves. That led to admiration for those who asserted themselves without any talent justifying that right, so bullies and aristocrats. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Is that what it led to? I don't think those admirers upheld the Nietzschean spirit very well.

I can see falling behind screeching Nazis if you think all other people are gutless and meek pushovers. — TheSageOfMainStreet

I can understand falling behind Nazi's if you are a spineless sucker, and enjoy taking orders from other people.

The claim is about relative agreement on what one concept refers to versus what another concept refers to, right? — Terrapin Station

In that sense, these neurobiologists are saying the concept of morality cannot be agreed upon, in effect they cannot proceed forth with scientific testing until they can agree what it is.

You'll have to do some research into how neurobiologists (or any scientific community) come to form consensus in order to form unified concepts, which they can then proceed to scientifically test.

You said that a consensus about it made it "unified." — Terrapin Station

I said that is what would make it unified, but I only meant, amongst the scientists who agree with each other. Sorry if I took that fact to be implicit in what I was saying.

What would that have to do with a "bunch of shit done by neurobiologists"? — Terrapin Station

Because were talking about what neurobiology says about morality, and it is neurobiologists who are saying it.

How about:

You want herpes.

Or

The empire state building does not exist on the moon.

My point in this tangent is that I was wondering what the evidence was for "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be" — Terrapin Station

I think that was your point. The evidence, here, is a bunch of shit done by neuro-biologists.

In the article, some academically active neurobiologists basically admit that neuro-biology cannot adequately explain morality without supplemental explanations from nonscientific disciplines.

On one hand, if their evidence (which they thoroughly reference in their article) is sufficient for the claim to be correct, then neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality, like they claim. On the other hand, if we say that the evidence provided by these scientists is insufficient, then it doesn't matter what neurobiology says about anything, since any evidence a neurobiologist provides (e.g. a reference to a clinical study) to support any claim is inherently insufficient; and in this case, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality.

Either way, neurobiology cannot adequately explain morality.

What are you saying then?

You are mistaken and most likely uninformed. But I like your youthful enthusiasm, so I will take the time to correct you.

Nazism derived directly from Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Philosophy of History. In fact, both those works directly inspired Mein Kamph. The only reason Nietzschean philosophy came to be associated with Nazism is because of his anti-semitic bitch of a sister, who perverted his ideas, after his death, for political purposes.

The main evidence is found in concepts of the world historic figure and ubermensch. If you actually understood the difference between them, it is obvious which one explains Hitler.

Seriously, what do you seem to think I’ve done? What am I ‘reflecting’ on, but not ‘considering’? What precisely is the difference you’re implying between ‘reflecting’ and ‘considering’? Is it simply that you see me staring at my own beautiful reflection rather than asking others about what they see, or that I’m ignoring the mirror entranced, as I am, by my own image (and who can blame be! Such a sight to behold ... oops! Too much coffee today methinks!)

Anyway, just cracked open B&T and I have an hour for lunch ... — I like sushi

I'm about to crash, so allow me tomorrow to adequately respond. However, I get your attitude, as I to have come across some on TPF who make a career of being difficult. I am not one of them, I assure you. Till tomorrow. You too Shamshir

Glad I'm not the only nerd here.

Thought is the dialectical negative. It freezes motion in it's abstraction, but does not stop motion in existence.

Dammit Mr.Kirk! Never been near a Black Hole with Mr.Spock? — I like sushi

Btw, its captain, or Jim

You only regard it as such because you are reflecting, and not considering the dialectal framework which was adopted by those who were accused of being existentialists.

ACH-HEM...

You're basing your understanding of change on motion. But where do we get our idea of motion from? — Joshs

Existence without motion is unthinkable and motion is unthinkable sub specie aeterni. Leaving out motion is not exactly the cleverest of moves, and introducing it into logic as transition, and with it time and space, is only a new confusion. But in so far as all thought is eternal, the difficulty is one for the one who exists. Existence, like motion, is a very difficult matter to deal with. If I think it, I do away with it, and then do not think it. — Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Kierkegaard, p258

If Heidegger claimed to overcome metaphysics, could there be a post-metaphysical meaning of religion? Perhaps of a Kierkegaardian sort? — Joshs

I like it. Kiekegaard had a very specific and cogent take on the religious. His greatest philosophical contribution was in liberating the religious existence from Hegelian phenomenology.

I will sleep with all of you. Wait. That came out wrong.

But that looks like the second greatest thread on TPF, after "Should this thread be considered?"

I wish you all a great goodnight, and look forward to continuing the greatest thread ever, manana.

Guys, this thread is here to allow discussion about recent bannings. — Hanover

Oops, sorry, I hadn't arrived at your post yet.

I think I had you all wrong, thinking you might be a shitard. But now, you are validating my small hunch that you, might in fact, be a genius.

Verdict still in deliberations

Dream of the bomb and its possibility, it is very soothing.

If you don't mind my saying ... so it might be...

Bugs bunny never cared about how far he pushed it, and he represents the pinnacle of game theory, in theory

I think you missed something, again. :smirk: — Sir2u

If I didn't miss something, my name wouldn't be...what the fuck is my name again...mekwadofgizcum...shit, the spelling eludes me...but whatever it is, it wouldn't be that

Forgive me, I only meant to Wallows in facetiousness.

Thanks for the gift, the gift of

but they're under the effects of snow — Sir2u

Cocaine?

No, you need good old psychedelics to Wallows in the strict sense.

I wonder what S was doing up at 4:20 in the morning. He should be in jail. — Purple Pond

He was obviously drinking the blood of the young. What else do you do after you hit the bong.

Ooo..
Faux pas

I would never miss a chance to Wallows with the prime Wallowser.

and, of course, your tiny penis. — S

Ok, if you saps are gonna continue with the dissing, at least don't be so whack.

And why so misogynistic, why not tell him his vagina is flappy?

It's cause for celebration, I'm getting rickitty-wrecked.

It is likely that these symptoms of stupidity are widespread on TPF,
— Merkwurdichliebe

I doubt that it is so wide spread, but some people do seem to be sarcastically disadvantaged. — Sir2u

Sarcastically disadvantaged, poor fellows.

They go to sleep at the proper British time, everytime.

I love the bomb. It represents more than I could ever put into words.

They are very regimented about their slumber out in old England town

Look what happened though, you lost the cause. — Wallows

But is it not efficient to drop the cause once you've obtained an effect. For the effect constitutes ground for a new cause.

I don't think is a person, he is a concept

Mine is the grey area