I'm wondering why you didn't answer my questions — S

Am I a dualists? No. I wasn’t sure how serious a question that was and also didn’t want to lose track of the subject in a tangent, or at least an uninteresting tangent.

Am I a dualist? No. I wasn’t sure how serious a question that was and also didn’t want to lose track of the subject in a tangent, or at least an uninteresting tangent. — praxis

I didn't need an essay. A yes or no, and perhaps a brief explanation, would have been fine. And you had already seemingly lost track of the subject, which isn't about computers. Anyway, so you think of the order you were talking about as physical then, presumably. We're supposed to be talking about the source of morality, and if you think that order is of relevance, then discussing what kind of thing that is doesn't seem off topic.

You do not understand how science works, do you?

And you had already seemingly lost track of the subject, which isn't about computers. — S

I don’t think it’s about flying cars either. What do they call it? Oh yes, an analogy. They’re sometimes used to help bridge gaps in understanding between people. Unfortunately, those offered the bridge are sometimes unwilling to cross it.

I don’t think it’s about flying cars either. — praxis

:lol: :point:

For someone who feels that morals are a matter of preference and who claims to have no beliefs concerning God, you sure do like to argue your points regarding morals and God; which are rather empty, nihilistic, egocentric, and altogether revolting to anyone with a heart. Why do you do philosophy? It seems you would be happier as a serial killer or a baby-puncher.

What do you mean an aesthetic assessment?

Of course we can work to condition ourselves for various objectives but since we’re talking about morality we might assume that I was referring to the morality relevant sort. — praxis

The conditioning of ethical behavior doesn't sit well. Conditioning seems to detract from the immediate responsibility that quintilessentialy defines ethical existence. Responsibility implies risking something by committing myself to a specific set of moral principles. It means that it is highly plausible that in the last moment, I can do the wrong thing and betray my principles. On the other hand, if it is the system of conditioning that is ehtically responsible for me, then if I am properly conditioned, it is impossible for me to do the wrong thing in the last moment; and if I don't do the right thing at all, then I haven't been properly conditioned, and it is still the system of conditioning that is ehtically responsible for my wrongdoing.

For someone who feels that morals are a matter of preference and who claims to have no beliefs concerning God, you sure do like to argue your points regarding morals and God; which are rather empty, nihilistic, egocentric, and altogether revolting to anyone with a heart. Why do you do philosophy? It seems you would be happier as a serial killer or a baby-puncher. — Noah Te Stroete

You're confusing me with someone else, like Terrapin. I have never actually claimed that morals are a matter of preference.

But not the serial killer, baby-puncher part. That's spot on. I also fuck my own mother. And sometimes I set fire to old ladies.

Oh, that’s right. You don’t make affirmative claims. You just point out the flaws in others’ arguments. Anyone can do what you do on this forum.

You do not understand how science works, do you? — Merkwurdichliebe

Are you suggesting that we don't need evidence of an empirical claim?

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Medieval Birth-Class Supremacy

But isn't the vicarious sense of victory when "your" team wins a continuation of this primitive negation, through substitution, of self-identity? More important, doesn't representative government satisfy that serf's perspective?

Oh, that’s right. You don’t make affirmative claims. You just point out the flaws in others’ arguments. Anyone can do what you do on this forum. — Noah Te Stroete

They can't do it as well as me. And even if that were all I did here (it isn't), there would be nothing wrong with that.

there would be nothing wrong with that. — S

It is all you do here that I’ve seen, and it’s not doing philosophy.

No need to get so specific. Just post a list of 100 books and I'll read them all on the remote chance that any of them actually provide the evidence I'm asking for.

Then why did you ask me to? You are very confused.

So you deny that neurobiology can tell us anything about the source of morals.

If you do not explain your position, that is the necessary conclusion tha we must arrive at.


I don't care one way or another, but, I'm not so sure you even know what your position is. I think you are just flapping ass cheeks, and you seem to enjoy the smell of your own farts.

You said, "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be"--which you just quoted again above.

I asked you what a "unified concept" would amount to. You answered: "it would be something that is generally agreed upon within the scientific community."

So in other words, "At a physical level, morality is not a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community, yet free will seems to be."

So I asked what the evidence was supposed to be for that. What's the evidence that morality is not a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community, whereas free will seems to be a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community?

The answer to that isn't "Hey, read these 100 books given in the article's bibliography. The evidence must be in them somewhere. The article is peer-reviewed, after all."

It is all you do here that I’ve seen, and it’s not doing philosophy. — Noah Te Stroete

More evidence that you don't know what you're talking about.

So...what's your point?

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"

In the context of philosophical discussions, I'm often skeptical of various claims that are made. So I'll inquire into that as the discussion goes along.

But isn't the vicarious sense of victory when "your" team wins a continuation of this primitive negation, through substitution, of self-identity? More important, doesn't representative government satisfy that serf's perspective? — TheSageOfMainStreet

Yes, at face value it would seem to be analogous.

Direct democracy does satisfy the serf's perspective in the strictest sense. I would say that it is paradoxical, in that it begins on the premise that everyone has equal right to individual opinion, yet such a right makes everyone essentially unequal. And, to go further, democracy proceeds to reconcile this pardox (to negate the right to individual opinion) by governing through mass consensus.

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

What evidence is there that this is not the case? This question is much more important.

What evidence is there that this is not the case? This question is much more important. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know if it's the case or not. The claim was that it is. So I'm simply asking for the supporting evidence for it. It's a fairly simple empirical claim, but we'd need to actually do the survey to know it.

Then, let's agree. We can make no empirical claims, which means we cannot talk about morality in empirical terms. So what's the big deal?

A Republic Is a Foster Government

Read more closely and you may realize that what I mean by "serf's perspective" is the opposite of direct democracy, which would be "Serfs Up!" My use of "serf's perspective" is a condemnation of those who surrender their political identity because others, who impose a republic on them, force them, by devious methods of thought control, into lacking the confidence to assert their will. Submissives really don't belong in America and should go back to kneeling before the crumbling castles of Europe, sheepishly letting themselves choke on the dust from the guillotined skulls of the Masters such cowards worship.

Just because some citizen's individual opinion may not prevail doesn't at all mean he's given up his individual rights. Those who preach the scare stories of "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" want to impose snob rule and the tyranny of a self-appointed vanguard. Notice how all the Communist tyrannies refer to themselves as "republics." Rather than being tricked by the equally illegitimate other wing into saying that they aren't "real republics," I have independently concluded that all republics are elitist, decadent, and insulting to their own citizens.

Read more closely and you mayg realize that what I mean by "serf's perspective" is the opposite of direct democracy, which would be "Serfs Up!" — TheSageOfMainStreet

I read as closely as humanly possible. But what you said was quite vague and wide open for interpretation. Don't forget to adequately explain your position and define the relevent terms, or you may not get your point across as intended.

My use of "serf's perspective" is a condemnation of those who surrender their political identity because others, who impose a republic on them, force them, by devious methods of thought control, into lacking the confidence to assert their will. — TheSageOfMainStreet

What would it look like for such slaves to assert their will in this scenario?

I think it would resemble direct representation. In the Nietzschean sense, democracy, whether direct or representative, is a consequence of the slave revolt.

Those who preach the scare stories of "mob rule" and "tyranny of the majority" want to impose snob rule and the tyranny of a self-appointed vanguard. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Well if they are imposing their morality on anyone else, even if it is a morality of individualism, it is still an attempt toward a slave morality; I can only apply the morality of the individual to myself if I wish to avoid transfiguring it into a slave morality. Otherwise I am positing a teleological contradiction.

I have independently concluded that all republics are elitist, decadent, and insulting to their own citizens. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Indeed.

Also Spank Zorro's Sister

With this snobbish term, "slave morality," you just illustrated why Nietzscheism led to Naziism. Likewise, Heisenberg's irrational physics led to his irrational and authoritarian politics. Apologists who preach that those two were inconsistent or had their ideas perverted are making shallow excuses for their own misinterpretations.

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.

Then, let's agree. We can make no empirical claims — Merkwurdichliebe

But I'm not saying anything akin to "We can make no empirical claims."

What are you saying then?

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.