/lit/ - Literature

>>3315944
You can argue whether Cicero and Jesus is as well, depends on the definition or use of the word.

But yeah, Darwin was merely one of guys credited with the already existing theorization of evolution, his science wasn't that good. He's equivalent to a celeb.

>pic related, one of the newest philosophers

>>3228346
I am sorry
;_;
>>3228328
>That book was what turned me off of my ignorant hatred of christian philosophy.

Are you me? I read Hitchens, Harris and Dennet when younger, I really needed Kierkegaard (and a later study of philosophy) to get rid of the arrogant and puerile view i had of religion in general. Sadly, I think i am unable to do the leap of faith.

I read F&T twice, gave it to my aunt last christmas, and bought it for my mother this christmas. My aunt is getting some Camus this christmas, slowly educating my family.

I think the 'greatest' moments of existentialism are when you get ideas and interpretations of your own, formed from texts itself or helped by other peoples interpretations. I think we need a /phi/ board, because /lit/ is so attached to posts being related to books.

Did someone say my name?

Also, although you guys might say otherwise, he did succeed in what he tried to do in the Moral Landscape.

He didn't set out to prove the existence of objective morality through science. He said that morality exists as a concept to benefit human flourishing, and we can determine certain methods to assist in this though the scientific method.

>>3166251
haha we got em there huh XDD

/edgyatheistsam harrishigh five

nothing he still posts a lot

admitedly less frequently

Sam Harris talks about this in his book 'The Moral Landscape'. You probably think he's a vapid pop philosopher like Grayling but Harris talks quite a bit about this problem.

Ultimately he says yes, it would be moral for the entire human race to be wiped out if it reduced the suffering of a consciously higher species.

>>2219732

not yet.

>>2169917

no