ITT: Philosophers that are right about everything
literally who?
>>7911162
>philosophers that are right
>posts a picture of a complete and utter hack
kek
>>7911169
You're the only hack around here, kid
>>7911176
Harris quotes:
But we [USA] are, in many respects, just such a “well-intentioned giant.”
>USA = Well-intentioned giant. Someone doesn’t know how power structures operate.
I will say a few things about pacifism in a later chapter—for it seems to me to be a deeply immoral position that comes to us swaddled in the dogma of highest moralism
>Degrades pacifism not because of its flaws, but because of how he thinks it makes people possess a false sense of superiority over others from a moralistic high ground.
How would George Bush have prosecuted the recent war in Iraq with perfect weapons?
>Once again Harris likes to use Hypothetical scenarios rather than focus on the historical reality of the situation. Hypothetical are fine for abstract academic discussions, but fail when applied to REAL world events.
Chomsky might object that to knowingly place the life of a child in jeopardy is unacceptable in any case, but clearly this is not a principle we can follow. The makers of roller coasters know, for instance, that despite rigorous safety precautions, sometime, somewhere, a child will be killed by one of their contraptions. Makers of automobiles know this as well. So do makers of hockey sticks, baseball bats, plastic bags, swimming pools, chain-link fences, or nearly anything else that could conceivably contribute to the death of a child. There is a reason we do not refer to the inevitable deaths of children on our ski slopes as “skiing atrocities.” But you would not know this from reading Chomsky. For him, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.
>Completely misunderstands the point. Also, to compare the dangers of a war-zone to the dangers of riding in a car is fucking absurd.
Saged.
>>7911203
*roller-coaster, not car.
saged
>>7911203
He is such a fucking asshole.
>>7911203
this guy just rekt OP
good work chum
>>7911162
>>7911203
>>Completely misunderstands the point. Also, to compare the dangers of a war-zone to the dangers of riding in a car is fucking absurd.
You're the one who completely misunderstood.
>>7911162
Wow, anon. You've done it again. You've posted it for the 50,983 time. You should be proud. Rarely in the annals of the internet do we see such dedicated shitposting, and not since the frogposting phenomenom of 1342 have we seen such grinding determination from an anon of your caliber. Truly you are on another echelon.
>>7911162
Even disregarding his politics, his philosophical system is inconsistent because it includes both hard determinism and moral realism. He claims that there are things that we objectively should do; however, by his own determinism, it isn't up to us whether we do them or not. As demonstrated by Kant, ought implies can; it isn't immoral for a person to perform an action that they have no choice but to perform. Since Harris thinks we have no choice but to perform the actions that we do, he cannot claim that any actions are moral or immoral; so he contradicts his own system.
Probably the best libertarian political theorist and philosopher in the world.
He is seriously underrated.
>>7911203
top kek. i like it when an anon comes along and btfo of another condescending shitposter.
you still took the bait mate. this shitposting autist has been spamming sam harris threads/posts since that big thread titled "did he kill philosophy" got over 200 replies. Just ignore this attentionwhore until he decides create a thread which actually has good content.
>>7911203
>Also, to compare the dangers of a war-zone to the dangers of riding in a car is fucking absurd.
And yet, you can't seem to explain why.
all posturing, no substance.
Sad!
>>7911203
KEK
all these sam harris bait threads recently. i wonder if it is the same anon shitposting over and over again. it's not even particularly clever.
saged.
>>7911165
Came to post this
>>7911203
have you read his essay to how faith in a higher power is equivalent to an enjoyment of wood fires?
I think it would speak to you.
I just want someone to listen to right now
I don't even like Sam Harris or his ideas
Give me some recs /lit/
>>7912345
Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan
>>7911679
If the Chomsky fanboys wouldn't keep replying to him, I think he would stop
Anybody with even an elementary grasp of philosophy understands that Harris is a nonentity
Unfortunately, Chomsky fanboys rarely possess that elementary but still necessary grasp of philosophy, and they also often suffer from a chronic need to constantly voice their opinions
These bait threads will only end when the Chomsky fanboys learn to put their smug sense of intellectual superiority behind them, which is to say, never
daily reminder that Based Chomsky Blew him the FUCK OUT
>>7912649
Stop bumping your own thread, cocklover.
>>7912652
>Chomsky
He should stay in his main field.
>>7911668
He's by far the best An-cap I've ever seen. He actually made it a defensible position.
>>7912775
Yeah I agree.
I was pretty conservative and quasi-religious before I started reading him. He lead me onto David D. Friedman and Bryan Caplan.
I wouldn't say that I'm full ancap but I definitely am libertarian now.
My personal favorite essay by him is "Why People Are Irrational about Politics".
It analyzes how the vast majority people don't hold logically coherent political beliefs and how lacking a grasp of metaphysics and epistemology leads to brainlessly siding with a party or ideology.
His book "The Problem of Political Authority" is also great.
>>7912775
How can any position that purports to be "anarchistic" and yet still requires property rights be "defensible"? It's a contradiction in terms.
>>7912824
So called "anarcho-capitalism" is self-contradictory on every level. You can't have property rights enforcement without a state.
>>7912849
I've read Rothbard, Nozick, and Heumer. They never really address the inherent defect in "right-libertarianism" (and "anarcho-capitalism"): namely, property rights.
They waste all their time talking about no-brainer issues like drug legalization, etc. Nobody on the left disagrees with any of that. The problem is the concept of "property".
>>7912868
That is a semantics issue. Just because "anarcho" is in the name doesn't mean that the philosophy is constrained into a anarchist system of beliefs.
Anarchism at its basis, doesn't advocate the abolition of property, just the state.
>>7912891
You cannot have "property" without the State - that's the whole fucking point. The crime of "theft" cannot even be defined without laws that specify who "owns" what.
Anarchism absolutely requires the abolition of "property" and all other state-dependent constructs.
Pic related, the smartest man ever to live.
harris is just human garbage
>>7911162
>>7911165
>>7911668
>>7911683
>>7912635
>>7912893
>>7912926
just hire a private militia dude
anarcho anything is stupid but still it's not unimaginable that there would be a way to maintain property
>>7911162
Holy fuck. This has to be the fourth ot fifth thread I've seen in the past week shamelessly shilling for Sam Harris. I know you're a samefag because you use the same smug photo of him. Go take your threads to /his/. We're here to talk about literature.
>>7911162
>>7912635
shapiro is a lying fuck though
>>7911162
do u realize how many people u triggered
>>7913066
/thread
>>7912642
Why the fuck does he tuck his beard INSIDE THE FUCKING SUIT?
>learn2shoop anon
based OP. Harris is the final boss of philosophy.
>>7911162
me and you and everyone we know
>Philosophers, who are right about everything
>Not Ayn Rand
>>7913928
Your autism is showing, anon.
>>7911162
The face of rational thought. I'm not going to say he's right about everything but so far I haven't seen anyone actually refute anything he says and especially the Chomsky fan boys. Seriously, just read the Chomsky and Harris e-mail dialogue on Sam Harris' blog and tell me that Chomsky doesn't appear as some crying kid throwing out ad hominems from the get go. Sam Harris on the other hand was calm and explained his thoughts with rational arguments.
>>7912974
Mate he isnt even the smartest scholastic Scotus blows him out of the water
>>7911683
I know him from the teaching company
He's wrong about free will (it exists) and he's wrong that qualia can be explained by science (that is impossible for epistemological reasons). And finally of course he's wrong about is-ought.
What he's right about, though, is religion, and especially Islam.
>>7912980
He's a complete shitlord.
USA ruined everything, included philosophy. Thanks USA.
>>7911162
> Not wrong about anything.
