Why did it take so long for someone to debunk Hume?
>>7897537
sam harriss is the final prophet of philosophy
Are we doing Harris-posting again
Thought this thing died off like ten months ago
Please create new memes, necrophilia isn't that fashionable you know
>>7897567
Fuck off.
Seriously is this another lol-Nickelback-sucks-and-we're-cool-4channers type of thing?
I've read his book, it's very pragmatic, straightforward and on point.
What's the deal with the hate?
He didn't proclaimed himself to be the god of morality.
The shtick goes goes like this: you mention him, assign to him a status of pomposity and then pretend he's that strawman you build and you ridicule that.
I don't see him as anything important desu, just a man with a clear message, and I mostly agree with that message, he's very practical.
What's actually cringeworthy is when you defend centuries old obscurantists.
>>7897585
You do. You're not trying to say anything.
>>7897588
I've never read him, so I won't get into tge merit of his books. I personally just dislike how he's used as a firestarter on this board (and /his/, to a lesser extent). I've looked at all of the threads beginning with an image of his and none of them produced anything worthwhile. It's just people getting butthurt and writing long winded, aggressive defences of ideas Harris (or his supporters) appear to despise and inane fuckers responding with sophistry (implying, but define x, etc). This is the worst kind of meme, an argument starter that will iterate itself again and again, producing nothing new or of value.
>>7897588
Exactly. He bridged the is ought gap via science. What is there to not commend?
>>7897619
>via science
You haven't read the book have you.
>>7897628
Im a Harris scholar. Don't make me school you.
>>7897629
Irony is that you're doing that yourself right now.
>>7897637
I didn't condemn it, so yeh, no.
>>7897642
literally laughing out loud.
ITT: no refutation of anything written by sam harris but still shitting on him by saying how shitty he is.
>>7897647
Literally dug yourself into a hole I can tell with a response like that. Of course I wasn't condemning it, I was doing it. However I will condemn those who profess some sort of righteousness and then do essentially the same thing I was doing.
Wew lad
>>7897629
Haven't said anything about the man and his ideas - as I said, I just dislike the role his "image" plays in this board's economy of discussion.
But hey, yeah. I may have caricaturized those who do it, but I think I made my point, perhaps?
>>7897588
>What's the deal with the hate?
>He didn't proclaimed himself to be the god of morality.
/lit/ dislikes Harris because he seems to consider himself a renaissance man. An intellectual with the flexibility to opine on topics as broad as neuroscience, philosophy, religion, foreign policy, geopolitics, defense, terrorism, you name it. Perhaps more importantly, he writes on these topics in a way which suggests he thinks he's revolutionising the field.
The problem is that on all of those subjects besides neuroscience he's a complete dilettante. He seems to have a complete aversion to reading and engaging with people who have considered these subjects at length for decades. With philosophy his refusal to engage with the literature was because his readers would find it "boring". He then comes out with an unreflective version of hedonistic utilitarianism, and parades it around like its a revolutionary concept.
>>7897666
That you're a hypocrite? Loud and clear.
>>7897668
Good response.
And I'll agree to a large extent of that.
All that meta burden aside, do you consider what he wrote wrong?
Like the essence of his message, that morality can be measured and delivered?
That most things fall under the objective morality/ethics category.
His core argument is that biological and mental(extension of biology) well being are the most important factors of culture, politics, morality, etc.
>>7897673
Are you willfully trying to ignore what I was trying to say? I'm not engaging with the topoc, I want to make a point on the rhetoric of /lit/.
>>7897668
Well he is a neuroscientist.
>>7897704
Sounds like reheated Benthamism
Sam Harris is essentially right.
If your argument is that "he discards centuries of multiscipliplinary aspects of morality" then it's simply not good enough.
It intuitively sounds wrong to say it but you could say that there were centuries and tons of literature of things that were completely false.
You don't need to answer every single thing if you have a good answer that covers the question itself.
I don't have to read all religion textbooks and its literature to decide whether god/magicshit exists or if it exist I should believe in them.
>>7897762
in what way is he "essentially right"? that statement is simply not good enough
>>7897825
In that, in the end you still agree with him.
Don't tell me you fell for the categorical imperative meme
>>7897537
I don't know who that man is but by the looks of him there is a 0% chance he is a good thinker or writer. absolutely 0%
>>7897635
I Kek'ed
Honestly, I read the Chomsky-Harris e-mail exchange and decided then that I didn't care to ever waste my time reading Harris's books. Is that okay?
>>7897537
>Why did it take so long for someone to debunk Hume?
>Debunking Hume
>Ignoring Hume
Pick one.
>>7897704
>Like the essence of his message, that morality can be measured and delivered?
>That most things fall under the objective morality/ethics category.
>His core argument is that biological and mental(extension of biology) well being are the most important factors of culture, politics, morality, etc.
I think the groundwork with which he makes those claims is faulty, he's tried and failed bring questions of ethics into science’s domain. No empirical inquiry into such questions can determine anything of clear moral significance without having normative conceptual answers already in place. And finding and justifying those answers requires a distinctly philosophical, not scientific, approach.
>All that meta burden aside, do you consider what he wrote wrong?
I won't delve into my own beliefs, but I will say that as well as disagreeing with the means with which he reached his conclusions, I disagree with the conclusions themselves.
>>7897537
Can somebody bring out harris' arguments regarding the philosophy of Hume?
I have never read sam harris but I already know it's going to be the same old shit, he'll probably try to shoehorn science in as a refutation of is-ought or something.
The reason I haven't read him is because of his face.
He looks like he belongs in a romantic comedy or maybe as a stunt double for ben stiller.
>>7897938
His ethics is literally the idea that we can derive morality (in his case utilitarianism) from science.
