[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.4768031 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4768031

>>4768025
yep

>> No.4727120 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4727120

Purification.

Application of the scientific method is putting morality on an objective basis.

>> No.4649528 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4649528

>>4649521
>Or when science can successfully create a moral system

>> No.4641137 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4641137

Because I know science.

>> No.4613071 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613071

Morality is objective. Lrn2science

>> No.4589264 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4589264

>>4589250
>aestethics
is being researched statistically in the social SCIENCES

>morality
can and should be topic of science and only science, pic related

>mathematics
is nothing more than a tool

>> No.4574604 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4574604

>>4574586
>It is different to say: you are idiot therefore you are wrong and you are wrong therefore you are an idiot.
Then why do you use the former while I use the latter?

>such basic logic mistakes
Obviously logic is another weakness of yours. Please take a course on formal logic.

>Show me how the scientific method will bring to us a new ethical code
Pic related. The neuroscientist Sam Harris proved that objective morality can and should be subject of science.

>> No.4535385 [DELETED]  [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4535385

Hi /lit/.
I saw this book being discussed on /sci/ and I'd love to hear your opinions.
Is it truly an illuminating masterpiece?

Even Richard Dawkins was highly impressed and said it changed his life. Here's his review:
>Beautifully written as they were (the elegance of his prose is a distilled blend of honesty and clarity) there was little in Sam Harris's previous books that couldn't have been written by any of his fellow "horsemen" of the "new atheism." This book is different, though every bit as readable as the other two. I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can't duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result. Sam Harris shows that the same should be true of moral philosophers, and it will turn their world exhilaratingly upside down. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.

>> No.4098626 [View]
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4098626

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]