/lit/ - Literature

Samuel ”Stove” Harrington

This is an argument so weak it doesn't even deserve debunking. His hidden premise is that there is an objective ontology of "sucking" that can not only be scientifically calculated in it's present sense but also in it's hypothetical sense as well (we can not only determine what sucks, but also what we could do instead that would suck less). The justification for this axiom is literally "it hurts to touch a stove". This isn't scientific, or philosophic, it's appeal to ignorance. He's capitalizing on people who don't know much about science or philosophy to accept his psuedo-argument as either philosophically rigid, or scientifically valid, even though neither can be said. If he really wants to talk about objective sucking he should be arguing from a place of value ethics (e.g. a negative conception of flourishing -- unsucking) or utilitarian ethics (act only in a way which produces the least suck) but he obviously hasn't read the value ethicists, who really do care where we derive these values from (none of them landed on stoves surprisingly), nor the utilitarians, who have known since the 1800's that calculations of pleasure cannot be reducible to pure analytics or some scientific method. At best, he is pitching a crippled version of rule-utillitarianism. If fleshed out into a paper, it would probably get him a B- in an ethics 100 class.
Cuck Philosophy did a detailed analysis of the Moral Landscape I can recommend for a much more detailed analysis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI&t=232s

>>11948522

>>11945093
>>11945120

>>11442080

>>11195060
>DEFINE THE DIALECTIC IN PLAIN ENGLISH
if this
>>11194990
isn't plain enough English than you need to read more Hegel. You can't demand complex ideas be boiled down for brainlets without totally losing the message and getting black science man (or worse, Sam Harris).

>>11141827

>>11127647
Hitchens was pretty good as a journalist. Dennett does the only decent academic work out of all of them as far as atheism is concerned, but it's nothing much but a rapidly approaching historical artifact in my opinion. He seems to be used more as a dartboard for physicalist critique than anything else. Dawkins and Harris are literally retard tier.

>>10600821
>t. sam harris