/lit/ - Literature

>>11945020
He's right, apart from saying there's no "you", for you are what you grasp onto.

>>11945024
>He's right
>*clap* *clap* *clap*

>>11945020
How does he squirm his way out of the fact that the logical conclusion of utilitarianism is anti-natalism?

Dude random thoughts lmao
Dude your brain thinks rubber glove is your hand lmao
WTF? There is a zero chance we have any sort of autonomy based on these two statements. We are merely ones and zeros! Except for gods chosen, they have autonomy because their IQ is so high. God bless em.

>>11945054
What would I do without you merchant friend :)

>>11945020
/lit/ i'm confused is he a pseud? Everyone posts about how stupid he his but never offers actual arguments just characterisations of his fans. I'm not a supporter of his or trying to be edgy i'm just yet to see actual criticisms on this website regarding his atheism and rejection of free will.

>>11945033
incel

Harris is a hack. His 'moral landscapes' are the most thinly-veiled utilitarianism (and therefore not ethics at all), his work is rife with both logical and scientific fallacies, and his education is questionable at best. He appeals to the lowest common denominator, the hoi polloi, and he is the definition of a pseudo-intellectual.

>>11945093
Then you haven't ever seen his threads. They are full of actual argumentation and usually get to be pretty damn long or even hit the bump limit.

His ideas are frankly laughable

>>11945093
I have yet to see someone make an argument for the anti will extremists. They always act like it's objectively true and I have never seen a single reason why. I think the will vs determinism argument is stupid. We are probably somewhere in the middle. Like yeah the past has a serious effect on us but we can sort of influence the path we take life. Like how someone with a shitty upbringing can go on to live a normal life.

>>11945093
He doesn't have any unique positions and regurgitates simplistic arguments from previous authors utilizing his verbal IQ to make it sound insightful.

He's a philosophical eunuch.

>>11945120
I'm no philosopher, but is his conflating of all suffering (things that suck) with touching a hot stove the point that his "solution" falls apart?

>>11945120
yeah i've seen that twitter thread before I suppose that is pretty ridiculous honestly.
>>11945129
I agree but i've never seen a convincing argument on /lit/ for free will either. Im not on this website 24/7 so thats probably why. Ultimately though I think >>11945130 is right but that criticism can be applied to 99% of public intellectuals today.

>>11945020
>a subconscious process did that for you, in fact there is no you at all
This is the dumbest argument ever made. Anyone who unironically believes this has ceded any right to make fun of GW Bush, who "goes with his gut" instead of making measured decisions.

It's literally arguing that people are NPCs and we should be okay with that.

>>11945140
Not that poster, but in short no.

He is trying to move from factual statements (what is) to normative statements (what ought to be.) The problem with his reasoning is that he assumes both all people are interested in avoiding 'experiences that suck' and 'experiences that suck' are of a quality common to all people.

What he fails to account for are people who know that 'some experiences suck' and nevertheless want to cause suffering in other people. What Sam has failed to provide is a moral system that can justifiably accuse these cruel people of being irrational. Because these cruel people actually want people to suffer, the 'experiences that suck' are exactly those where other people have 'experiences that *do not* suck.'

By Sam's own logic, therefore, these cruel people ought to make the universe suck less which means that they ought to cause more suffering.

is there actually any proof that the subconscious exists?

>>11945020
>All thoughts arise from subconscious processes: UNKNOWABLE
>All subconscious processes are effected through a combination of genetic and experiential factors: UNKNOWABLE
>Genetics and experience stem from material causes: UNKNOWABLE
>All effects have a material cause: UNKNOWABLE
FREEWILLTARDS ETERNALLY BTFO. A HURRDURR.

>>11945234
No, and if you even try to have an open-minded conversation with a Sam Harris type, they will just beg the question until you want to hang yourself.

>>11945020
HYPOCRITE THAT YOU ARE

What's the point of the "no free will" argument? It's not like it is going to change anything; man will continue to live as if he had free will even if it was somehow proven that it did not exist.

>>11945234
Collective? Yes. Its a meme argument tho.

Individual? Questionable. Were you subconsciously breathing up until this point?

>>11945120
>There are no oughts or shoulds.
>Life sucks sometimes.
>We should make life better.

Honestly, I don't even feel like I'm strawmanning his argument when I phrase it like that. I can't believe I used to worship this guy.

>>11945268
Existential nerd-bate. The world is a simulated reality, Morty.

dude you don't control nuffin and no there isnt something pulling the strings

>>11945234
>>11945247
There are plenty of rigorous philosophical arguments for the existence of the subconscious.

Here is an example:

You are in a loud room and it is difficult for you to concentrate on reading Fennigans Wake like some retard. The /lit/ QT 3.14 utters the words
>"anon can you..."
it is at this moment that your attention is now on the /lit/ QT 3.14 and spaghetti immediately begins to fall out of your pockets.

The situation described is not uncommon. You have probably been in a crowded, noisy room and have been alerted to the mention of your name. What is puzzling, however, is how exactly this was accomplished. Because you are normally trying to push all the noise from your conscious experience, we would assume that the mention of your name would be lost in the noise and somehow it wasn't. This is strange because the 'filter' you have been using is not in-discriminant. What is this faculty that alerts you to the mention of your name only?

People who honestly, charitably consider the previous example will have good ground to believe that the subconscious exists and is not negligible. Many more examples of a similar form exist, but I am way to lazy to type any more at this point.

>>11945020
"Do you believe in free will?"
"Do I have a choice?" xDDD

- Chris Hitchens----honestly the best response to this pedantic philosophical question.

>>11945093
>>11945120

>>11945277
>I can't believe I used to worship this guy.
It's okay, anon. I used to think that Smash by The Offspring was the greatest album to ever exist. We all are haunted by what we previously adored.

>>11945020
what nonsense---free will is more complicated than yes and no. we don't have control over all impulsive reactionary responses, biological stimuli, nor do we have control over every second of our lives. and the subconscious---not only the drives, but the social/familial/biological programming---does certainly complicate the question further.

but we can shape our subconscious gradually (which effects future actions), we can practice "mINdFuLNeSs" so as to have a better chance at making the best possible decisions to shape our future actions. we can't override all programming---either biological or social---but we can excercise greater control, greater willpower.

all this said---even the intentional process of finding more control over your life, thoughts, and environment---could still be a product of a priori mechanizations. but at that point, it's just a stoner-tier philosophical debate that doesn't offer you anything, other than, like, "some perspective man xD"

>>11945337
free will is simultaneously an exercise of the immediate, the gradual, and the attritional processes that progress and/or diminish the mind's ability to control itself and the body.

>>11945093
Ok I know accept he's a psued. Thank you:>>11945120
>>11945129
>>11945130
>>11945168
>>11945213
>>11945234
>>11945239
>>11945247
>>11945268
>>11945317

>>11945352
Nice spelling *now

>>11945145
>but that criticism can be applied to 99% of public intellectuals today.
the youtube intellectual elite probably

But people like Singer, Chomsky and Dennett have notable ideas they can call their own. Even psueds like Zizek and Jordan Peterson can make this claim. But Sam doesn't, he hasn't brought anything new to the table, all he has is his podcast.

>Tell that to your stove.

>>11945373
it's halfway unfair to call zizek a pseud. he's just capitalized on the instant marketing of the internet. but he got recognition prior to video. real prolific writer, frighteningly well-read, and has dazzlingly strange thought processes.

i think he's a signifier of philosophers to come---more in tune with transitory politics and pop-culture, conspiculously a critic as much as a philosopher, and one who is aware of the failures and futilities of classical philosophy.

forsure not a pseud. JP I could be convinced of, but Zizek is far from a pseud. Even his more far-fetched ideas are revelatory. I think hes almost certainly smarter than Dennet, and he's more charismatic and genuinely progressive (in the sense of furthering tradition, not politically progressive) than chomsky. that's just my opinion

>side note
never understood the fascination with sam harris. even in my edgy internet atheist phase, i hated when he would try to talk around hitchens or dennet. he's got the most monotonous, slightly smug tone ever. you can hear the pseudo-enlightment in how measured he speaks. sucks dick

>>11945396
this was the act that he perceived maximized his wellbeing

>>11945456
How do you know?

>>11945093
I don't know but the way he speaks makes me think he has a horribly inflated sense of self worth.
Even the intro music for his podcast is pretentious.

>>11945120
Am i a retard or is the assumption that knowing everything about the universe is going to make make our lives better the most retarded thing here?

>>11945024
Wrong

>>11947143
Most probably he did it for greater good after long consideration. Becoming a martyr 'sucked' less for him than continuing his life. It's not like he was like 'lol I'll immolate myself' arbitrary free-will-driven decision.

>>11945396
>>11945317

>Tell that to your stove.

what did he mean by this?

>>11945234
>is there actually any proof that the subconscious exists?
yes
where do you get your ideas from?

>>11948806
the outside world?

great work, writing collection of subconscious processes named Sam

my encumbered will is going to prevent me from donating to your patreon though. sorry about that


(I haven't actually watched much Sam Harris)

>>11945027
I'm not clapping because he's an idiot. That is just a particular idea that I agree with.

>>11945093
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHZc40uQuHo

>>11947446
see
>>11945120