Name a better philosopher from the last 100 years.
But that's easy, my dear OP.
Any of the philosophers that belong to the following set: {x : x is a philosopher from the last 100 years} \ {Sam Harris}.
Wittgenstein
Dawkins, Nye, Krauss the list goes on
>>7722428
You forgot James "The Amazing Randi" Randi, sir.
As well as Neil Degrasse Tyson.
It would also be criminal to not include Christopher "The Hitch" Hitchens.
>>7722389
is this owen wilson? if so, then mark twain.
I think Harris hates Muslims more than /pol/ does.
>>7722389
I'm OK with Sam Harris, but he's getting a bit too buttfrustrated about SJW stuff recently, and it's clouding his normally sound judgment.
>>7722389
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8
Sam Harris
Prabhat Sarkar
>>7722389
which book would you recommend reading first? i'm a big fan of his podcast
>>7722486
To be fair, people who are being taken very seriously are calling him a racist hate-monger who wants to nuke the middle east. They've made it personal by slandering and him at every turn, deliberately misrepresenting and outright lying about his views and he's getting sick of it.
how many of you guys are from reddit?
>>7722428
>dawkins
is he even a philosopher?
>>7722912
I agree, but he's way too mad at Chomsky in particular.
>>7722926
lol this post is a joke right
dude asian tsunamis lmao
>>7722934
i know right
prolly a fundie
>>7722939
Or a scientifically illiterate fag who like philosophers who just whine about MUH FEELINS
>>7722520
subscribed, this guys a riot. Harris is a silly man.
>>7722950
The study of feelings has been central to philosophy throughout its entire history.
>>7722956
Maybe post-modern and liberal philosophy, but the only field that has ever produced anything of worth on the subject of feelings is neuroscience.
>>7722960
Sigh... you really could have made this point without bitching about liberals. Sam Harris is as liberal as they come.
>>7722960
you're using "feelings" in two distinct ways. And in the way you're using it in the second part of the sentence is nonsense, and completely forgets empiricism, phenomenology, etc
>>7722956
>HURR OTHER PEOPLE DO IT THEREFORE IT'S RIGHT
-_-. why don't you actually watch some of sam harris's debates before brushing him off. or maybe his radical, scientific ideas on free will and religion hit too close to home?
>>7722918
show me a 4channer who wasn't first a redditor, and i will show you a shocked face
>>7722977
I like Sam Harris, but he's wrong about free will.
>>7722981
I hope you're joking, because you triggered the fuck out of me
>>7722983
In fact, free will is one of like two or three things that he's wrong about.
>>7722983
>>7722985
lol another buttmad christposter triggered by sam harris's philosophy. sam harris is never wrong; he's the only philosopher who bases his philosophy on science, so he's literally incapable of making mistakes. that's why he's able to destroy philosophers who rely on "muh feefies" like william lane craig and noam chomsky
>>7722389
me tbqh
>>7723003
Once again it has been shown that you can't embarrass the Harris
>>7723008
>you can't embarrass the Harris
Lol that's pretty good.
reminder that old-boring-nothing going on-upstairs-chomsky exposed him as a hack fraud
>>7723095
Probably nothing going on downstairs either LOL
>>7723101
lmao man i had to laugh at that lol ( a second one for good measure)
>>7722466
He's literally collaborating with a Muslim right now, he even wrote a book with him.
How is /lit/ so wrong about Sam Harris?
Guy is fantastic.
I guess if you only read a bit about him you could get the impression he's some neo-con nazi who took a philosophy 101 course, but you should really watch him talk and see the sincerity and beauty in his personality.
>>7723122
Go to bed, Sam
>>7723122
There's nothing sincere about him. He is but the complex workings of his brain.
>>7723095
>Sam: Wanna talk?
>Chomsky: No fuck off I don't talk to New Atheist autists
>Sam: I'm sorry you feel that way Noam, I think we could really clear some air between us and enter fruitful discourse
>Chomsky: I said fuck off GAS AMERICA SAVE ISLAM
Chomsky looked like a complete moron in that exchange.
>>7723126
There is nothing insincere about him, care to explain why you doubt that?
>>7723146
How can he be more sincere than others when free will itself is but an illusion?
>>7723149
Free will doesn't take responsibility away from you on that scale, obviously you never chose to be insincere but you still can be sincere or not.
>you had no say in what race you'd be born as
>there is no white and no black
he can't into is/ought
>>7723179
> religion being bad,
Sure.
>especially Islam
Because it's any different than other sand people religions.
As for free will, how do you even justify the idea if you don't agree with religion?
>>7723173
But you're wrong:
http://www.franzkiekeben.com/blog/-can-one-derive-an-ought-from-an-is
The Is/Ought distinction is mere semantics when you break it down, obviously all of Hume's claims are implied when utilitarianists like Sam Harris deliver a philosophical argument, it is merely dismissed because his philosophy is -not- prescriptive but rather descriptive.
>Because it's any different than other sand people religions.
But it is, Islam is the most imperialistic Abrahamic religion.
One only needs to look at the core figures in say Christianity and Islam, contrasting the socialist hippie pacifist Jesus to the conquering warlord Mohammad who kept sex-slaves and ordered the beheading of an entire Jewish village.
You cannot be this delusional about religion.
He was pretty good in Meet the Parents but I dunno if I could say the guy was really a "philosopher"
>>7723179
just fucking make your argument for free will already; it's impossible to make a non-compatibilist argument for free will in this era of science
>>7723198
interesting article. thanks for sharing.
While I have you here, since you seem to be a harris aficionado could you tell me if it's true he believes objective morality can be derived from neuroscience and if so how?
>>7723215
not him but watch Harris' TED talk
>>7723122
>He wrote a book with Maajid Nawaz
How have these niggas not killed each other?
>>7723223
More like "why he thinks is worse based on his idiotic and limited arguments"
Harris isn't even a fucking philosopher. He isn't even a neurologist or whatever it is he claims to be. He is an author who sells books. His PhD work was really sketchy shit involving the brain and religion that has like nothing behind it. I can't believe anybody actually takes him seriously.
>>7723248
>you need a special piece of paper in order to think and write
>>7723198
Sam Harris claims that moral statements logically follow from statements about the physical world. Not true, but even if it were, there's no obvious reason why egoism wouldn't be the ideal ethical system over utilitarianism.
>>7723251
No, but when you're making the claims that he makes, there should be some accountability. He doesn't have any peer reviewed works, he has never worked within academic philosophy, he isn't an actual scientist or doctor. He is just a guy who writes hateful shit to sell books.
>>7723267
It has to be.
>>7723269
He's not really hateful.
>>7723278
He has made a career out of hating Islam haha.
>>7723281
He only hates the ideas. :-)
>>7723281
He hates MUSLIM, not MUSLIMS. There's a difference.
>>7723284
Oh... so he only hates one Muslim? Which one...?
>>7723281
I do agree though that he's a hack who hasn't contributed anything of value to humanity. But of course, how many of us have...?
>>7723269
The thing about philosophy is the claims you make are usually predicated on brute reason and thus, if you're capable of being a philosopher, you shouldn't need citations or sources. Your reason should be enough.
Modern philosophy is, of course, based on a lot of well supported science, but science itself is just an evolution of natural philosophy and there is even room to doubt some of its premises. For example, if you're interested in finding an absolute truth it will necessarily be unfalsifiable and thus rejected by science. That being said, there simply is no practical alternative to the scientific method if you're wanting to describe an objective reality.
I agree, Sam Harris isn't much of a philosopher at all. He ignores the HPC almost entirely and assumes a physicalist/monist doctrine that is just as flawed as dualist perspectives.
He can't address Mary's Room, he can't address philosophical zombies, but I do think 'The Moral Landscape' makes some interesting points. I don't think it's a very good argument for 'objective morality', but I feel like he's getting at a cultural source of our morality that could lead to some game changing philosophy.
>>7723284
You're right, he only hates Islam, which conveniently includes all Muslims.
>>7723291
He has had such a negative impact on society and thinking in general, that our useless existence is still better haha.
>>7723293
I really think that The Moral Landscape is boring and poorly written/thought out. The issue with sources and all of that, is that he completely and conveniently ignores all of the philosophical work done before him. He is a hack in every sense of the word.
>>7723293
>there simply is no practical alternative to the scientific method if you're wanting to describe an objective reality.
Scientific method is too limited epistemologically. Plenty objective facts can be determined without peer review or more broadly intersubjective confirmation.
>a physicalist/monist doctrine that is just as flawed as dualist perspectives.
Nothing wrong with dualism.
>he can't address philosophical zombies
The concept of p-zombies is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of consciousness in the first place. See: http://individual.utoronto.ca/benj/ae.pdf
>>7723291
idk about yall but my very existence is a contribution to society
>>7723293
>I feel like he's getting at a cultural source of our morality that could lead to some game changing philosophy.
Oh yeah I've also never heard of someone named Friedrich Nietzsche.
>>7723330
Keep telling yourself that.
>>7723319
I doubt he's done any real harm. Not even the most fedora of atheists thinks we should be torturing Muslims or whatever. Probably.
>>7723337
>projecting your own lack of value onto other people
>>7723348
He has his own following unfortunately. These "new atheists" are garbage time thinkers and people think they should be starters.
>>7723350
That's definitely what I do, but for some reason I only project it onto people who use 4chan, and somehow magically it turns out I'm correct 100% of the time. Weird.
;)
>>7723367
>I only project it onto people who use 4chan
>yfw
>>7723293
I just looked up what Mary's Room was.
That is literally one of the most retarded philosophical arguments I've ever heard.
>>7722428
Kek
>>7723405
How can you think you're qualified to judge the merit of a thought experiment (and this is a thought experiment, not a philosophical argument you dumbass) when you've never even heard of Mary's room, one of the most popular thought experiments of the 20th century? It's the Schrodinger's cat of philosophy. Avant teens are ruining this board.
>>7723127
more like:
>Sam: What up bitch? Let's talk about intent motherfucker
>Chomsky: No thanks
>Sam: Why are you being so mean to me??
>>7723433
Because it's that so easy to see through. If Mary sees color for the first time, her experience is still based on physics. The light enters her eyes and she her brain interprets the light waves as color. The entire process is physical - from the light photons, to the cells in her eyes, to the neurons in her brain.
>>7723449
Its late, so what I wrote is fucked up, but you get what I mean.
>>7722389
>>7723437
Seriously, that whole exchange was super embarrassing for Harris and the fact that he actually published it is just another example of why nobody with half of a brain takes him seriously.
Mary's Room would be a legitimate argument if it were written in the second person.
>>7723449
Poorly thought out reductive physicalism notwithstanding, you completely missed the point of the thought experiment, which was to serve as a point of discussion for the existence and value of qualia. You'd know this if you just scrolled down a bit on the wikipedia article you just read.
>>7723480
Am I getting trolled?
>>7723499
If I were trolling you, I would have responded to your post. Shouldn't be too hard to understand why I said what I did.
>>7722422
Underrated post.
>>7723154
>Free will and genetics are analogous
>>7722389
Well...
>>7722466
Of course he does. He's a Jew.
>>7722981
I am.
First a channer, sometimes visit reddit.
>>7723568
I probably never would've gone to reddit if it weren't for 4chan.
>>7723587
Well actually I only go to reddit because it's basically the online hub for Bernie Sanders' campaign, but I did learn about reddit on 4chan first, probably. Or maybe somewhere else like SA, idk.
>>7723562
I don't get it. Is Ayn Rand supposed to be standing in front of the best philosopher in the last 100 years?
>>7722389
ayn rand
>>7723610
She's not even the best female Jewish political thinker of the past 100 years.
>>7723613
My pathetic excuse of a body produces more interesting thoughts in a beer-fueled fart than Rand ever did.
>>7723562
Must . . . resist . . . bait . . .
>>7722998
>noam chomsky
You actually read Chomsky and Harris' email correspondence in full, right?
![russell_in_1938[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HQl1FHD.jpg "russell_in_1938[1].jpg")
Heidigger, Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom, Isaiah Berlin, Anonymous of /lit/
>>7723600
I came here from cracked in like 09 as an underage.
I've only uses Reddit like four times to check the berserk sub for news on miuras bullshit. The site and layout are horrible and super sycophantic.
>>7723458
I liked him until I found out he shilled for tobacco companies.
>>7722389
>Sam "BTFO by Chomsky" Harris
>all these replies
>>7722389
Book Review: Waking Up by Sam Harris
As an insight meditation teacher, reading Waking Up by Sam Harris was simultaneously joyful and shameful. It is a fine book that points to a weakness in the culture of awakening that is hard to look at directly. In his usual style, he is honest to the point of painful, and sometimes it can be hard to take.
Let me back up.
For those who don’t know Harris, he is a neuroscientist who became most well known for publishing The End of Faith, a book promoting the idea that what we believe influences how we behave, and that faith-based beliefs lead to rather irrational behavior. Like flying planes into buildings. He’s dry, technical, but funny and obviously not afraid of controversy. Apparently people really like that combination, because The End of Faith stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for over 30 weeks. Harris quickly moved from obscure neuroscientist to intellectual sensation, and was lumped in with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett as the leading edge of a revitalized post-9/11 atheist movement described as “new atheism.” Together they were ironically dubbed the “four horsemen.”
But Harris is an odd fit among the horsemen. While Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins all rail against the privileged position that eastern spirituality seems to have among western intellectuals, Harris openly disagrees with them, making the case that despite the woo-woo clearly at work in the offerings of Deepak Chopra, The Secret, and similar new age flim-flam, there is something valuable to be found in the spiritual traditions of Asia that is being obscured, rather than revealed, by pop spirituality. He uses his public platform to urge people to dig a little deeper.
It turns out he is speaking from experience. Waking Up is not just an introduction to Buddhist meditation and the liberation that it leads to, it is a spiritual memoir told from the perspective of a consummate rationalist and skeptic. One who stumbles upon enlightenment.
After a few chapters of fleshing out why some spiritual practices are fruitful human endeavors and others are not, and correlating the claims of mystics with modern neuroscience, Harris gets down to the memoir part of his book and dishes on his own experiences. I was thrilled to read that Harris begins his spiritual search in U Pandita’s meditation center, where he practices a rigorous form of insight meditation. Harris is told that he is working through the progress of insight toward “cessation,” and will attain his first taste of awakening upon that strange moment of non-occurrence. For readers of my site, or fans of insight meditation, this should all sound very familiar.
When I read this part of the book I was rooting for Harris, excited to hear what he makes of the shift in consciousness that occurs after cessation. I looked at how many pages >>7724084
were left and anticipated that there would be a detailed account of how he reconciled his own encounter with nibbana with cutting edge brain science. This, I thought, is the book I’ve been waiting for.
So imagine my disappointment, shock really, when on the same page he reports that he couldn’t do it, and gave up.
No cessation. No stream entry. Zilch.
Something, I thought, went horribly wrong.
It is not exactly clear from the book what happened. In retrospect he reasons that moving toward a goal (cessation) did not feel like the right path to enlightenment, and that truth can be glimpsed no matter where one is on the path, and truth is not found in a state, cessation is not necessary and… his explanation started to feel fishy as I read it. Frankly, this sounds like a rationalization after the fact. Indeed, it sounds identical to what he was taught by the teachers and traditions that he encountered after he left Pandita’s center (Advaita and Dzogchen). So what was he really thinking and feeling at the time he threw in the towel?
A hint can be found in his description of the wall he hit during a year-long retreat:
“But cessation never arrived. Given my gradualist views at that point, this became very frustrating. Most of my time on retreat was extremely pleasant but it seemed to me that I’d merely been given the tools by which to contemplate the evidence of my non-enlightenment. My practice had become a vigil. A method of waiting, however patiently, for a future reward.”
Harris is describing an insight practice that has stalled out in one of the stages along the progress of insight. In another passage he points out that his movement through the progress of insight wasn’t very clear and although he had many interesting experiences he did not know if he was making any progress at all. Why didn’t he know?
What concerns me most about this is that Harris does not describe what would have been the best, most natural, and sensible antidote for his struggle: someone simply telling him where he was on the path and what to do to move on. I wonder what kind of book Waking Up would be if someone had simply taken him aside at that time and said “hey, relax, you are in lower equanimity. It goes on for a while and can sometimes feel uneventful. Here’s what you can do about it…”
>>7724094
Insight meditation, as a culture, is often one of information-restriction rather than transparency. A nascent movement, pragmatic dharma, has emerged largely in reaction to this, but it is still in its infancy and does not have much of a voice in mainstream meditation centers and media outlets (yet). The most traditional approaches still hold the biggest sway, and they are usually hierarchical, with the teacher knowing the details of the insight stages and which one the student is currently developing. The student’s role is to follow the instructions faithfully and not become too wrapped up in where they are on the path and when the cessation will come. There are many reasons why this approach developed, and many of them are very good reasons. But I don’t think these reasons work anymore, and Harris’s case is an example of why we can no longer afford to have an approach to insight meditation modeled on the norms of pre-modern hierarchical culture. It just doesn’t work very well. A few hundred years ago Harris may have stuck it out, not because it was a special time full of special people, but because his options would have been limited. In today’s world, he simply had better choices and felt empowered to pursue them. The important point is that Harris wasn’t failing as a meditator, he was most likely in a state of information-hunger about what was happening in his own mind. He deserved to know more. And as insight meditation grows and establishes itself in the west, we need to keep in mind that we can do a lot better than this.
I would recommend Harris’s book for a number of reasons. The skeptical approach to awakening, denuded of the dogma and superstition, is wonderful. It’s as if a portal into the future opened up and the reader can see what an approach to awakening will look like when we move beyond religion. The presence of neuroscience in a book about awakening is nothing new, but it is rarely presented so soberly and carefully (although the caution led to a lack of integration with the rest of the book). And finally, it is clear that Harris knows what awakening is from direct experience, and can discuss it as a field of human endeavor every bit as legitimate and practical as any art or science.
The book is a high wire act in a sense, where he balances between the assumptions of secular materialists on one hand and religious ideologues on the other. He invites each to see something in their direct experience that fails to fit into any dogma, and he does so with an understanding of both positions that is refreshing. I’m often frustrated with authors who are so intoxicated by spirituality that they’ve lost their mental footing and have succumbed to a kind of cognitive free fall, but equally odious are authors so rigidly skeptical that they refuse to look at the miracle of their own consciousness. Harris successfully creates an island in the gulf between the two perspectives. Hopefully, it will grow as others follow suit.
>>7724097
>In Defense of Sam Harris, Sacred Cow Butcher
Something weird is happening in the liberal, interested-in-spirituallity-and-enlightenment world. An in-group purge is occurring that is so ugly and vitriolic that seeing it occur publicly is a bit like seeing a fistfight at a yoga studio. A gathering mob of angry intellectuals and left-leaning public figures is encircling Sam Harris and attacking him with a viciousness rarely seen among progressives.
This got my attention because Harris recently wrote Waking Up, a book about Buddhist meditation and Harris’s own realization WakingUpof non-self through Dzogchen practice. To say I was interested in this book would be an understatement. I’d always felt that of the new atheists, there was something different about Harris. His style intimates an inner contentment that I only see among people who have experienced deep transformation through meditation. So when a friend gifted me a copy of Waking Up and asked that I share my thoughts, I was excited to do so.
But then Ben Affleck happened.
When Harris made an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss Waking Up Affleck was also at the table, and was clearly fuming with hatred for Harris. I never got to hear Harris discuss meditation because Affleck began attacking him before he had the chance. He called Harris a racist for his open (and very strident) criticism of Islam. When Harris calmly responded, explaining that Islam is not a race, Affleck’s anger, now mixed with confusion, only became worse. Everyone watching, including me, realized that they had seen something unscripted and very strange.
But what followed in the days and weeks after Harris was Affleck-ted was even stranger. Religious scholars and public figures began piling on the insults and attacks, and the attacks occurred with such vitriol that it was hard to see this as a debate over ideas. It was a character assassination. A mob of bloggers and celebrities gathered to bring the fear of God to Harris for what essentially amounted to thought crimes.
The event reminded me of something I once witnessed as a child. A boy in my second-grade class who was outspoken and a bit of loner, but who was undoubtedly brilliant, had a habit of hurting people’s feelings with his honesty. He won all the spelling bees and science fairs, got the best grades, and even corrected the teacher on more than one occasion in front of the class. One spring day during recess the most popular, most well-liked, and best-looking kid in the school punched him in the mouth for “smarting-off.” What stands out in my memory is what happened next. The nerdy kids emerged from the gathered crowd and took turns punching him while he lay curled up in a ball. Later, my best friend in grade school called it “the day of the nerd-swarm.” It was primal and startling. The rumor mill ground to an uncharacteristic halt for a day, and no one talked about what happened after school. I think we all felt ashamed.
What is happening with Harris is the grown up version of the day of the nerd swarm. Instead of recess it is Real Time, instead of the popular kid it is Affleck, and instead of the teachers pets and grammer geeks it is progressive religious scholars and liberal pundits. Sam Harris is guilty of the crime of sharing his honest insights whether they hurt others feelings or not, and it is clear that there has been a resentment building against him among the intelligentsia. They are seizing the moment to attack.
Leading the swarm is Reza Aslan. Aslan and Harris, I’ve recently discovered, have a history. They had public debates about Harris’s books on atheism and what stands out about the debates is that Aslan is soundly trounced in all of them. Shortly after Harris’s appearance on Real Time Aslan published an op-ed in the New York Times that, without mentioning Harris, argued against him by asserting that criticisms of Islam, or any religion, do indeed amount to a variety of racist hate because religions are not just ideas, they are identities. And besides, he argues, people believe what they want regardless of their religion.
And this is where I decided to hold off on reviewing Harris’s book and write something of my own to defend him. Not that he needs help from someone like me, but because the things Aslan and others are saying are so egregiously wrong that their views could truly harm people. As my grandpa once said “you’ve got to have a lot of education to be that wrong.” These ideas have a direct bearing on awakening. And I would argue that what it means to be liberated from illusion has a lot to do with how seriously one takes propositions like Aslan’s.
While attempting to brand Harris a racist Aslan seems unaware that he is pointing out the very thing that makes ideologies, all ideologies whether they include the supernatural or not, toxic beyond imagining: they take the healthy psychological process of identity formation and hack it like a computer virus.
One does not just think that it is true that Jesus is the son of the creator of the universe, one becomes a “Christian.” One does not merely think that Mohamed met with an angel, one becomes a “Muslim.” One does not just believe that the proletariate will eventually seize the means of production, one becomes a “Communist.” And in my own little corner of the world, one does not just believe that the Buddha discovered an exit from being born over and over again, had psychic powers or was omniscient, one becomes a “Buddhist.”
>>7724102
If we step back and consider what is occurring here, it is startling. Some ideas, no matter how far outside reality they venture, thrive and spread by convincing those that take the leap of faith and believe them that the thinker has now become the thought. You don’t just think an idea is an accurate reflection of reality, you become the idea. When this happens the idea is sheltered from criticism because to criticize the idea is to attack the person. The person’s sense of identity becomes the idea’s armor from rational inquiry.
It is not overstating the case to say that if we used the same critical faculties to evaluate such claims that we use to choose car insurance, all superstitious and utopian ideologies would disappear in a day. But because these kinds of ideas disrupt the process of identity-formation, taking it over, we refrain from saying, or even thinking, the obvious to avoid offending others or frightening ourselves.
Imagine if we did this with other claims about reality. Is there anyone on earth who has become a “Germian” after accepting the germ-theory of disease? Who changes their identity to become a “Higgsian” after accepting the existence of the Higgs Boson? Where are the converts to Heliocentrism handing out leaflets at the bus stations?
In every other part of our lives we intuitively understand that what we think is true about the nature of reality and who we are as a person are not the same thing. When we operate in this way our internal world is governed by a mix of love and reason. Love in that we recognize in others something real in the here-and-now that is beyond the boundaries of any in-group ideology, reason in that our thoughts are no longer the source of our well being, so we can be free to let them go if they are not true.
But there is a special class of ideas that masquerade as identities, and when we allow them to govern who we are our world is also governed by irrationality of the highest order. It is no coincidence that the ideologies that take over the sense of self are also the most disconsonant with our lived reality. By forcing us to choose the ideology over reality, moment-to-moment, we engage in what psychologists like me call “effort justification”, and reinforce the acquired sense of self. That process is lauded as a virtue by folks like Aslan, who seems oblivious to the terrible nature of the very thing he expertly describes. This process of ideological identity-theft is the reason why Affleck became so confused when Harris pointed out that Islam is not a race. In Affleck’s mind, they are the same thing, and that is exactly how such ideas remain so potent and immune from rational critique.
>>7724107
The truth is this: we are not what we think. We never were. This instant it is possible to be in the world just as you are without being anything in particular except aware. All you have to do is see that you are not what you believe. You simply are. That’s it. To experience this directly and rest in it is to find happiness untouched by the contents of the mind. The closest thing in life people experience to it is being in love.
From a position of just being, without beliefs, it is much easier to think critically about whether ideas are really true. Because you no longer have a dog in the fight, if they are not true, that’s fine. If they are, that’s fine. This is one of the marks of awakening: the contents of the mind are no longer identified with that which holds them.
So, I hope it isn’t taken the wrong way when I say this, but I sincerely hope that Harris continues offending people. By attacking the ideologies that are masquerading as identities, he is, in his own brilliant way, bringing folks a little closer to awakening. And while I didn’t get the chance to hear him discuss his book, I think I got the chance to see him put his realization into service.
>>7722389
he is not a philosopher by his own admission
Donald J. Trump
>>7722389
Richard Dawkins.
A true based redpiller:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNhtbmXzIaM
Alan Watts
>>7722389
Stephen King.
Aren't you guys forgetting someone?
people saying that these radical scientific guys like Neil DeGrasse, Dawkins, Hawkings or Carl Sagan are philosophers are idiots
>>7724068
the chomsky meme needs to end. How exactly was Harris btfo by him?
>>7724672
As much as I dislike Chomsky, Harris tried to debate him or some shit while Chomsky pretty much went "lol dude ur an autist pls stop"
>>7724672
have you read the emails or are you just baiting
>I’ve seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this level – not to speak of the refusal to withdraw false charges, a minor fault in comparison.
>Very glad to see that we are terminating this interesting non-interchange with a large measure of agreement. I agree with you completely that we cannot have a rational discussion of these matters, and that it is too tedious to pretend otherwise. And I agree that I am litigating all points (all real, as far as we have so far determined) in a “plodding and accusatory way.” That is, of course, a necessity in responding to quite serious published accusations that are all demonstrably false, and as I have reviewed, false in a most interesting way: namely, you issue lectures condemning others for ignoring “basic questions” that they have discussed for years, in my case decades, whereas you have refused to address them and apparently do not even allow yourself to understand them. That’s impressive.
>The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content. Personally, I can’t imagine doing it. However, if you want to do it, I won’t object.
>>7724691
S A V A G E
>>7724024
Oh yeah, I also use the Berserk sub, lol. They're making a new anime again, and it's gonna suck.
>>7724632
Really? No way...
who /accelerate/ here
>>7724691
Sounds like Chomsky's just being a jerkhole to me. Chomsky may be the more important scientist, but neither one of them is a worthwhile philosopher or political thinker.
>>7724885
This is the only reason I'm voting for Trump in the general.
>>7724899
but Hillary is the accelerationist candidate
>>7724902
No... she's very much the status quo candidate.
>>7724906
which is also why she's the accelerationist candidate
>>7724917
Not sure I buy that.
>>7724960
I'm only voting for Trump in the general if Sanders doesn't make it, which he probably won't.
>>7724938
accelerationism recognises that the status quo is unsustainable and rotten to the core
instead of opposing the establishment (Cathedral) overtly accelerationists instead seek to intensify it so the world can see it thrash about in its own web
Trump can't be accelerationist because he exists outside of the Cathedral while Hillary is thet status quo completely distilled
>>7722981
I'm a 4channer who only goes on AMA's etc. Triggered asf
>>7725009
Because I agree with almost all of his policies.
>>7725030
then you're incompatible with accelerationism
>>7724966
Trump is absolutely a part of the establishment. Doesn't matter that he's not a politician or the RNC doesn't like him or whatever.
>>7725041
explain better
he's a heretic at best
>Harrisites on /lit/
Just fuck my board up senpai.
>>7725042
His policies only serve to advance the interests of corporations.
>>7725032
It's a contingency plan.
>>7725051
yeah by putting an end to illegal immigration and offshoring via reintroducing tariffs
you are of course also assuming that explicit corporatism is necessarily pro-establishment, it isn't
>>7725063
And introducing a 15% flat tax for corporations. Corporations are the establishment.
>>7725049
Damn. I can relate to sad pepe so much.
>>7722389
Thomas S Kuhn, anyone?
More influence than half these twats
>>7722389
Ueber Marginal
>>7725100
pic related
Nothing against Harris, but I quite enjoy Habermas.
Kek
>>7725168
>kek
I have never heard about him. Who is that philosopher?
>>7725228
A ты кeм бyдeшь?
>>7725310
he was the first.
>>7725337
if you have it, give me your VK, please. Do you want to be my gay-friend?
>>7725337
Tell me more about your philosophical views, sweety.
>>7725350
Hy дивaнoн кoнeчнo eщe тoт, ты дaвaй кидaй вк.
>>7724143
Based sciene man pwning brown skin fundies xD
>>7725358
He мoгy cкaзaть чтo я дocтaтoчнo paзвит или нaчитaн в филocoфии чтoбы дepжaтьcя кaкoй либo тoчнoй тoчки зpeния, извини дpyжищe. Пoкa лишь читaю пocтмoдepнизм пoэтoмy и вишy нa литe.
Дyгин вac вceх paзьeбёт, бeздyхoвныe пoдcтилки миpoвoй гигeмoнии
>>7725408
У мeня нeт вк. Пиши нa пoчтy [email protected]
Sup Übermemes :^D
>>7725725
Убepмeмчики пoдъeхaли нa литpy, чтo блядь пpoиcхoдит.
>>7722389
Mы мoжeм ceйчac пиcaть нa pyccкoм? Swag
>>7725787
Дa никтo и нe зaпpeщaл. Haдeюcь y oпи нeт вoзpaжeний пo этoмy пoвoдy.
>>7725856
fuck. off.
>>7725867
not an argument.
>>7725867
I'm serious;
1) most popular philosophy show on the web
2) scars from fighting the state
3) very compassionate
4) controversial, like any good philosopher ought to be
5) flows against the grain of modern degenerate group-think
Stefan is the greatest philosopher of the 2ks.
>>7725881
Molyneux is a sociopathic sophist. He's on the same tier as the guy that hosts PBS Idea Channel. Complete drivel
>>7725893
not an argument.
>>7725885
kill yourself my man
>>7725902
Not every exchange of information is meant to be an argument. Eat dick nigga, seriously.
>>7723215
It would be difficult to condense into a single post, but as the other anon said the Ted talk clarifies those things.
>>7723261
Again, read this: >>7723198
It's not exactly what he's saying.
> there's no obvious reason why egoism wouldn't be the ideal ethical system over utilitarianism.
Egoism ultimately is the truth and we can describe it in a descriptive manner, but this only really applies to psychological egoism I think, utilitiarinism seems more compatible with modern societies and would probably ensure that a civilized society can sustain itself.
>>7723247
This is the face of the Sam Harris shamer, usually ignoring his actual arguments and representing lies about him.
He never said Islam is inherently evil, he said Islam is neither a religion of peace nor a religion of war, but that we have to be able to speak soundly of evil things that Muslims do that can be traced directly back to the core teachings of the Quran.
Challenge one of his points coherently instead of name-calling.
>>7724691
That's literally just name-calling, Harris offered Chomsky the opportunity to clarify why exactly Harris supposedly ignores valid points made by neo-leftists like himself, but he refused to do so and just acted like a petty bitch.
Sam Harris has literally sat down with a Muslim who yelled at him for being an Islamophobe 4 years ago and wrote a book with him, Chomsky really just seems like the bitter idiot here who assumes Harris is some kind of neo-con shill that is trying to skew reality in the favor of neo-imperialism because he bashes Islam.
>>7724691
Can't find the arguments
>>7722960
neuroscience has not accomplished anything plz kill yrself if u think it's anything more than specious MRI studies of people answering questionnaires
>>7722389
>CTRL + F "Whitehead"
>0 out of 0
Disappointed. Process Philosophy is god-tier.
>>7725960
Figuring out the causality of the brain will change the whole game of crime and punishment, AFAIK there was one case in France where one man who was convicted of murder was saved from going to jail for the rest of his life because they showed unusually high testosterone production in his brain caused by a tumor which also inhibited his compulsion-control.
This is just a crass example, we can further deduct to this to more subtle nuances that make it unreasonable to judge everyone in the same manner, free will doesn't exist :].
>Sam Harris
Oh boy, now I have to name literally anyone from the past 100 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwPx1L7v2fk
>>7722981
This has to be bait, right?
>>7728193
It is true though, that the book is disappointing for who meditates.
Me.
>>7724885
here 2bh
>>7725945
Not looking hard enough
>>7722466
give one, just ONE reason why anyone with a fucking brain shouldn't hate islam
Lemmy Kilmister, Tommy Gunn
>>7722981
kill yourself
>>7723449
you completely missed the point. the point of the thought experiment is that regardless of the information concerning what may be predicated of a given concept, definition, rigor, etc, can never provide one with the information of what a given thing IS. Mary knew all there was to know of color, besides what it actually WAS. all she had been able to acquire in that room was what was predicated of color, however predicates can never actually convey to one the being of a select thing; they may only qualify.
>>7722389
Anyone else agree?
Though Harris is still pretty high up the tier list, I feel that Watts was a more perfected and in-depth version of what Harris is.
>>7722981
Been on 4chan (okay, not /lit/) since before reddit was a thing.
>>7723267
Every retard out there with a worldview thinks they're a philosopher. Eliot Rodger called himself one too.
>>7722981
i use 4chan, gf uses reddit. we dont cross over--never have never will
>>7722983
his argument is lackluster, but his conclusion is correct. give me 10 years, anon, and you will have access to the final proof.
>>7722389
searle
>>7725905
not an argument
>>7729792
Well on a technical level anyone with a worldview is really a philosopher.
>>7722981
>4channer
wanna know how you are a newfag and a redittor?
fuck off. and also everyone else that uses the therm 4channer should fuckin go.
Alexander Dugin.
Because fuck your modernism, liberals. There is only tradition.
>>7725902
Not that you gave any argument either, though.
>>7725935
haha you must not have read the exchange
>>7723319
Can you clarify why you believe he 'hates all muslims' -- actually on second thought, what even is the point? Why would I waste time 'debating' with someone who is so dishonest as to claim harris 'has made a career out of hating muslims'
>>7724960
Why does anyone one this board think they know anything?
>>7733187
What's the point of tradition that isn't racist?
>>7722473
This desu
>>7725416
Why did this become a bad thing because of their skin colour?
>>7725168
The image is smaller than the thumbnail. kill yourself.
>>7722389
Peter Griffin
>>7722389
Pretty sure this is a meme (i don't come here often), but in case it isn't, Harris is trash. He really should stay out of the more nuanced philosophical discussions and stick to neuroscience, and refrain from making positive claims on issues that are currently (and perhaps forever) unknowable (such as free will, etc).
It is very easy, basically any philosopher is better than him, I'm not even sure if he should be called a philosopher. He is not a bad person or anyhting, but I think his ego is a bit oversized and he often makes bold claims far outside the breadth of his expertise. He is bad for humanism and in general makes an ass of new atheism (Dennett and Dawkins are much better face for it).
But here goes:
John Searle (biological naturalism is great stuff)
Kurt Gödel
Wittgenstein
Leopold Löwenheim
David Hilbert
Albert Camus
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky (if you are going to allow Harris to be a philosopher)
Daniel Dennett
Dawkins (if Harris is a philosopher)
John von Neumann
>>7722389
DUDE
MDMA
LMAO
DUDE
THE SELF IS AN ILLUSION
LMAO
Harris is a thinly veiled buddhist charlatan. His ideas are tired trash. I can dismiss them without an argument because they are clearly false upon even light examination, and he never uses rigorous logic in anything he writes (it is always for a wide audience and as such lacks the technical nuance of real philosophical arguments).
He is basically trash for edgy neckbeards and neocons.
>>7723207
kek
>>7725935
For clarity - Harris kept trying to put words into Chomsky's mouth; there was no possibility of debate because Harris was little just making shit up as he went. I'm not a fan of Chomsky by any means, but Harris looked like a fool trying to pull that undergrad-tier shit trying to pretend he was Foucault or something.
>>7735212
yes it's bait
>dawkins
as bad as harris
>>7735288
Dawkins isn't a militant anti free-will activist nor a consciousness/qualia denier. In addition, he is much more soft-hearted and can sustain a nuanced discussion. He is also qt ;)
At least Dawkins has contributed to science and the philosophy of science (the same cannot be said for Harris)
Using any sensible criteria, Dawkins is a much better person and philosopher than Harris.
>>7732145
That's wrong, you fucking idiot. Am I a literature scholar because I have opinions about novels?
>>7735300
>Dawkins has contributed to [...] philosophy of science
What? Do you mean he contributed to philosophy of science in the sense that many philosophers of science, after the publication of his 'The Selfish Gene', heavily criticized it for being untenable on metaphysical grounds?
Kevin Solway
>>7735212
Have you really read Kurt Godel at any depth?
I mean, oaky, but, wow, if you have.
Also I why did you list Von Neumman?
>>7736036
Von Neumman because of his work on set theory, and maybe game theory (not really philosophy but whatevs)
>>7722389
He doesn't believe he's a philosopher, he claims to be a scientist. The fact some people may think otherwise proves he has failed at his quest to scientifically solve any philosophical problems.
Also, Slavoj.
