/lit/ - Literature

What's wrong with it? I'm sure you're right but I don't know/care enough about Harris to even imagine the content of one of his books

>>15614929
I never heard of him til he got btfo by jbp

>>15614940

too much to recap in one post and without having taken notes but basically he thinks science can determine moral values (wtf, every philosophy student knows this is a futile endeavor) and doesn't even try to tackle is/ought

>>15614957

lel i mean they both embarrassed each other. neither beat the other but admittedly jordy wasn't quite as cringe as sam 'hot stove' harris. i do however always have to chuckle when i think about harris asking peterson to tell him what he considers to be god amd peterson grabbing his laptop

>>15614929
*blocks your path*

>>15614929
>ever giving one of those retards enough attention to read one of their books
lmao
>>15614990
Why does Peterson so frequently enter debates where he has to google stuff half way through?
>>15614991
That's the same model of stove/oven that my parents had when i was growing up

>>15614929
>has this guy ever read a single page of a philosophy book?
Yes, that's the sad part. He got his BA in philosophy and somehow is still more pseud than the philosophy BAs I knew back when I was in school. They exist though because the phil BAs you meet online tend to be half and half. Sam Harris is a disgrace and every philosopher finds him to be pseud trash who doesn't engage the philosophical literature and reinvents the wheel only much more shittily.
>why isn't this guy ridiculed
He is, but you have to visit a philosophy classroom to see it.
>the book of mormon warrants more serious inquiry than this shit
Don't knock on the book just because of Mark Twain, it's got more merit than people realize, it's basically the national epic of the United States but it's yet to be reappraised as such because people hate religious works that aren't over ten centuries old.

i wish rationality rules browsed /lit/

>>15614974
>he thinks science can determine moral values

It sounds like a reasonable suspicion, everything we are boils down, ultimately, to our biology. Why'd moral values be different?

>>15614929
Lol dude, the guy is a (((public))) intellectual. You know that’s a job right? He just writes some pseud shit, idiots like you buy it and seethe, he gains exposure and turns it into money. That’s literally what IDW is for, it’s a money making cartel.
It’s the same as breadtube content and sjw cringe comps,people are just constantly using politics to hustle for money.

>>15615064
Irrelevant since JF btfo'd him into oblivion

>>15614929
Got btfo'd by a random spergy YouTuber named "cuck"

https://youtu.be/wxalrwPNkNI

>>15615854
>everything we are boils down, ultimately, to our biology.
Wrong and nihilistic.

>he proceeds to mistake the investigation of the reasons for moral values and the validity of them

>>15615854

science answers the how not the why. it can be used to tell us how to best work towards our values but it can't determine them

>>15615903
i literally said i didn't buy it you fucking clown

>>15616097

based. thank you anon

>>15614974
>basically he thinks science can determine moral values
He's right.
>every philosophy student knows this is a futile endeavor
No wonder. Philosophy studends are dumbass kids. Ask philosophy professors and you will get a different answer.
>>15616110
>science answers the how not the why.
Are we on r*ddit? Wtf is this sophomoric shit? Yes, science regularly answers why. Because of science we know why colors mix the way they do, why a rock sinks but a human can float etc etc.
>it can be used to tell us how to best work towards our values but it can't determine them
It definitely can, and Harris proves it. Seethe harder pleb.

>>15616097

>I want to believe Human's morality is exempt from Science cause that keeps my existential neurosis at bay, and gives me a sense of control that I need in order to cope with life, despite Science being to perfectly explain my dysfunctional patterns of behavior.
Get some logotherapy, faggetwat
>>15616110
I disagree, give me one example where values and moral decisions cannot be based on scientific understanding of human evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Pro tip: You can't

https://philosophynow.org/issues/90/The_Moral_Landscape_How_Science_Can_Determine_Human_Values_by_Sam_Harris

>>15616141

>says science answers why
>proceeds to post examples that answer how

go suck harris cock

>>15616097
>>15616110
It's not necessarily nihilistic to accept the fact that we don't know the why, nor do I think it's unproductive, because we can be blind things that perform to our natural inclinations, doing the same thing we would have done otherwise. We don't need to know why, when there are nearly infinite problems in front of us to consume our productivity, and because we are truly subject to the will of nature we must act to avoid death, and therefore propagate growth and reproduction. Our how is science, and our why is because we live and die, as a species. Perhaps its not in our nature to learn the why, and "become god", just as you'd not except a rock to do that, or a dog. Perhaps we may gain exponential knowledge and come to an end of knowledge, an end of learning, but I suspect that is so far in the future for our species i almost find it useless to think about, especially when it means fretting your whole life over answers you will necessarily never know. we are just advanced machines after all, descendent of cells and plants and fish and apes, and soon we'll be AI or something, I reckon. In any case, we ought to embrace a neo naturalism, combining the pursuit of virtue, acceptance of that which you can't control, and the acceptance of our natural inclinations and role as blind-species. Science can tell us how we ought to live, as far as we know, in terms of living and improving as a species expanding within the universe, bound by physics. And we are growing to understand life as we know it as the summation of adaptive mechanical systems in human bodies forming a sort of consciousness , that goes about its day adapting and surviving essentially no different than a wild animal. The way you think a dog thinks, or a bird, as this adaptive robot, is no more connected with "god" than we are. But we know that there is absurdity to that not-knowing, and to the idea of being/somethingness rather than nothingness. Accept you're a wild animal, accept the science, live without crippling fear and existentialism, live and improve and help people, bite the carrot dangling in front of you!

>>15616153

burden of proof is on you. give me an example where they can

>>15616153
>confusing is with ought this hard

even Christians listen to him.. I dojt understand why he's even known. isn't his dad a producer or something?

>>15616218

I could, but I argue that it is pointless since you clearly have based your identity on the belief Science cannot dictate, a why, on moral matters. Therefore I refuse to bother investing that much time, and energy in such a fruitless endeavor. However.
I offer you instead, this post. Which is my last one to you.

Please, enjoy it.

>>15616292
Theres more than just two people involved in a conversation, anon. Lurkers are quietly watching...
If you cant answers his question tho whatever

>>15616218

Very well, give me one moral value of your own choosing, which you believe cannot be explained by science, and I'll clearly refute it.

>>15616218
Not him, but here is an example. Why mustn't we kill our neighbors? Because social life is benefical to primates and they evolved accordingly.

You won't ever find an eternal unchanging Why to justify a specific moral behavior, because it's contextual, like any other trait you can think of about a living being. Contexts change, and so morality can and does change.

>>15616332

the contextual nature of morality is exactly what makes morality something that can't be determined by science.

The world is functionally deterministic.
Science alone isn't equipped to approach ethics.

>>15616325

explain scientifically why trust shouldn't be broken between two parties

>>15616417

based

>>15616405

Evolution is the epitome of contextual when you abstract its essential pattern.. If anything, morality is hyperscience. Life from an evolutionary perspective and morality are the same fractal pattern. They are both, reactive and adaptogenic. If you cannot readily explain a value with Science, it is likely you cannot process the necessary information to understand how it connects.
tldlr: You are a brainlet

>>15616418

Evolution found a pattern by which two competing parties working together towards a common goal benefits the survival of each individual. It comes to reason, that breaking such trust, is inherently a potential, negative outcome to either and thus retribution would be sought by the individual affected. Exceptions occur when the benefits of cheating the trust-bond far outweigh the negative consequences, which is why people cheat in relationships, steal and become corrupt.
Then you might ask, well how come some people don't break trust bonds, even when it benefits them to do so?
Well that's simple, breaking a trust-bond carries the probability of negative consequences, such as being cast out from the tribe. Which is, and has been one of the biggest factors in human survival and the prolongation of our genes.


There

>>15616544

you're basically saying "because that's how we evolved". that's not a scientific refutation and the fact that you think it is, is fucking pathetic

>>15616595

Right, of course. I must agree with you. Let's return to believing we are exempt from that which do have evidence for, and is readily rational. Lets instead happily live in a fairy tale where humans are spechuul creeatuuures with sooooouuulls and magic morality that is too rad and liberal to be constricted by the cold jail bars of objectivism.
Romanticizing every aspect of the human condition gives me a chubbiiiiieeee, senpaaai

>>15614929
Literally all the New Atheists are retards barring Christopher Hitchens. Dawkins is a philosophical Luddite, Dennett unironically thinks consciousness doesn't exist as a first-person phenomena, but as a third-oerson phenomena (i.e. consciousness the way we experience it isn't real) and Harris has this abortion of a book. The only reason I even think they had any momentum to begin with was because of the evangelo-cons in power during the Reagan through Bush eras. Now no one gives a shit since they've been out of power for close to 20 years and everyone knows that they're retards that believe things that are just completely indefensible logically. They're the commercialized, anti-reason, pop-sci versions of actually worthwhile scientists of the 20th century (and even beyond that to Aristotle). What really surprises me is how much their fanboys defend their autism.

>>15614991
What if you wear a mitt? Or you have no pain receptors, or a non-organic (artificial) limb? Even physical pain is subjective. We could all become brain-vat robots to avoid nature's imposition of pain vs pleasure and drift endlessly in space to ponder the question of good and bad more freely

>>15615854
Because biology is an arbitrary standard. Why should I yield to the demands of the vessel I happen to find myself in? It may help more people, but why should that be the aim of morality? It's just taken as granted without actually having a basis

>>15616649

yes, it's just a postmodern fantasy that facts and values are two different things. thank you for waking me up from my delusion.

>>15616332
What about not eating animals? What about not reproducing? Not even not reproducing to reduce population, but the idea of not reproducing so the entire earth will be devoid of humans. Furthermore, what about the belief that life is inherently evil because it contains suffering and should be eradicated? Are these all also grounded in some arbitrary evolution brain-mutation?

>>15616544
If the morality of my actions depends solely on the potential of positive or negative outcomes for me personally, does that mean that anything that I'm sure I can get away with is at worst morally neutral? If I can smother my mother to death in her sleep and I am 100% sure I can make it look like an accident, is that not an immoral action? And if I am in line to inherit a large sum of money from her, which would objectively increase my "well-being", how is it not the MOST "moral" thing to do?

>>15616659

de grasse tyson is by far the most annoying of those fuckers. such an arrogant piece of shit and a liar. he literally said that al ghazali said mathematics was the work of the devil

>>15616703
>Why should I yield to the demands of the vessel
You just did. You've said that like you can be something else but human. Bro, you are not a mind inside a body. Your mind and body are the same thing, you are the vessel.
Everything that is a byproduct of you, is a byproduct of your biology. You cannot, and will not escape it, cause there is nothing to escape.

>>15616659
This picture is a bit disingenuous because the people on the left are talking about Hume, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, and Aristotle, and their problems are realism in light of quantum mechanics.

The people on the right side are talking about postmodernism, French "philosophy", and academic gibberish. The picture misses the historical context entirely.

>>15615977
If you're going to self-promote at least be transparent about it.

>>15616659
Hitchens was just as bad.

>>15616659
>Dennett unironically thinks consciousness doesn't exist as a first-person phenomena
many many philosophers side with this view. the fact that you think it's dennett's idea and not an actual philosophical school of thought says more about you than him. brainlet.

>>15616744
>the people on the left are talking about Hume, Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, and Aristotle
>The people on the right side are talking about postmodernism, French "philosophy", and academic gibberish
None of which you have read.

>>15616659
If Einstein were alive today he would spit at the kind of philosophy that passes for peer review.

>>15616732

Pretty much, although there is little clear benefit in smothering your mum while she sleeps, unless she is abusive. And you shall be judged by your thrive depending on whether you had a reason to commit such actions or not.
Morality is not set in stone, which is why, while I would never kill an innocent bystander for no reason, I'd gladly kill, and rather enjoy torturing someone who had wronged me deeply.
You know, like literally anyone else.

>>15616741

materialist cope

>>15616756
And they're wrong retard. Not much too it. Eliminative materialism is retarded and blatantly false. Consciousness is inherently (or at least inherently has) a subjective first person quality to it. Any person can tell you that.

>>15616487
What does it mean to explain a value with science? For example,

>>15616332
>because social life is beneficial to primates and they evolved accordingly
How does science ground such a moral? Why does it matter that social life was beneficial to primates at one point in history? Why do we need to continue this practice? Science can't answer the why, it always presumes that it is the why.

>why should I do that? We evolved to do so
And if science can ground all morals, that leads to contradiction because not every moral is in accordance with other morals. I could believe, say, that it is just to kill all humans. Others would object to this. If both are grounded scientifically, then both are right. Disabuse me of my false idea if I misunderstood you

>you're wrong retard
>it's wrong
>it's blatantly false
>anyone can tell you
>trust me bro
>you don't read
This is how you know this person has never set foot inside a university and thinks calling people idiots on the internet makes him right. Fucking hell lord have pity.

>>15616292
>I could, but I won't.

If you want to appear based just say 'no', don't vomit this garbage.

>>15616777

I am embracing the reality you are too weak to accept. You want to believe you are in control, cause it makes you feel safe and comfortable when faced with uncertainty.
Thriving in chaos is the only antidote to life, welcome death with open arms. Shove your metaphysical cock up life's butthole deep, and spit on the throat of your fears.

>>15616803

No

>>15616776
>Like literally anyone else
This is your brain on 4chan

>>15616817
Oh look, baby is learning

>>15616825
>Still hasn't embraced his dark passenger
This is your brain on Reddit

>>15616838
What dark passenger? The violent kid who screams and wails? I have outgrown him.

>>15616776
>although there is little clear benefit in smothering your mum while she sleeps
Did you miss the part about the large sum of money? My post wasn't that long. I kill mommy, I get fat sacks of cash, my life is improved and no one is the wiser. No negative consequences for me, hence not immoral!
>unless she is abusive
What could that possibly have to do with anything?

>>15616794
Why should I entertain models that don't correspond with reality in the slightest? Why should anyone entertain models that are self-contradictory? If a belief is false, it doesn't matter if it's in a university setting or not, it's fucking false. Why do you think flexing that some dumb professors believe it makes it a valid theory to study? Professors are almost paid to study bullshit that will get them grant money, no matter how insipid it is at times.

>>15616741
Pathetic. Rise beyond your chains.

>>15616703
>Because biology is an arbitrary standard
All standards are arbitrary.

When somebody proposes utilitarianism, do you say "lol he chose pleasure as a standard! le lol what le retard"

Embarrassing.

>>15616866
Explain why biology is the correct standard using science.

>>15616786

Correct, morality comes from that which benefits the individuals. However, might makes right.
Morality, just like history and our laws are dictated by the selfish individual needs and nothing else.

>>15616672
>We could all become brain-vat robots
Damn that sounds like grounded, realistic philosophy

>>15616861
The point is not that eliminative materialism is wrong (which it probably is, but it doesn't look like you even understand it) it's that you argue like a child. You call someone a retard for proposing a philosophical theory, which turned out to be massively successful, but which you dismiss because "any person can tell you that".

>>15616864

I have no chains to break, cause I haven't brainwashed myself into the neurosis that is believing you are a soul imprisoned into a jail of flesh.
You are the sick one here. With a binding of your own making.

>>15616878
Morality rarely benefits the individual

>>15616892

Morality rarely benefits the individual without power*
Let me fix that for you

>>15616871
No. Your argument of arbitrary standard was shit. Conversation ends until you give a better reason why any other moral system has privilege over a science based one. This was the primary reason you gave for disliking Harris's book.

>>15616544
So morals benefit the survival of each individual. Why should morals seek to benefit the survival of each individual? What is meant by "negative outcome?" Is science ethics just utilitarianism?

That these moral ideas helped human survival and prolonged our genes doesn't mean we need to follow them, because it presupposes that the aforementioned are desirable for all. I could simply disagree that morality should be grounded in what benefits the species.

>>15616649
Did you acquire brain damage between your previous post and this one?

>>15616741
Obviously I do what I will. And what my body/mind/what have you willed the action I performed. Therefore it was a product of my body. You are missing the point, or my statement was too broad; my point was, why should I base my morality around the pleasure vs pain distinction (assuming you are a utilitarian) when doing so would just be yielding to a demand of my vessel? I don't yield to every one of my vessel's demand.

>>15616776
He named the benefit, that is, the inheritance. The only negative outcome is how you feel about it afterwards, but if you went through with the action, fully conscious of its result and requirements, you probably feel nothing anyway. It is also assuming the act will be found out by the tribe.

>I'd gladly kill, and rather enjoy torturing someone who had wronged me deeply. You know, like literally anyone else
And if I didn't? Or are you going to tell me that deep down, everyone wants to kill their enemies? I could just say deeper down, everyone wants to change or save their enemies. Unless you try to prove your "deeper down."

>>15616878
You are free to choose every moral system you can, and you are in an age where you are rich and prosperous enough to even live by them without suffering too much, and you choose the law of steel. Really? Are you that close minded?

Also please explain how monks starvimg themselves helps them.

>>15616891
no you've been brainwashed to think you are just a worthless hunk of flesh and genetic mutations

>>15616891
You haven't seen them yet. You play in the mud, child of Gaia.

>>15616889
Who cares? This is fucking 4chan, not an academic forum. No shit I'm not going to argue like I'm doing a mathematical proof. Stop acting like a fucking redditor and giving a shit about argumentation techniques and shit when you can clearly follow my flow of logic. Stop being an autistic and understand the concept of casual conversation. And how successful is a theory when it STILL hasn't given useful results about describing consciousness and still hotly contested if it's actually useful. I'd say not very.

>>15616659
I would love to punch Lawrence Krauss in the face

>>15616904
I'm a different anon though? It's the usual refutement. 'prove you can use science for everything using science'.

Well, you can't. Because in choosing biology, you'll say something like 'its natural', then I'll ask you why biology being natural means it's more true, and ask you to prove that with science. Youll probably say science helps people more, and I'll say, prove that utilitarianism is the correct standard, with science. Then you'll call me a retard cus you'll have no response.

>>15616923
holy shit imagine getting owned so hard that you make this post

>>15616907
>Why should morals seek to benefit the survival of each individual?
It happens as a side effect of the submissive at the bottom of the dominance hierarchies
>Did you acquire brain damage between your previous post and this one?
Possibly, reading your rhetorical retorts is my main suspect.
> why should I base my morality around the pleasure vs pain distinction (assuming you are a utilitarian) when doing so would just be yielding to a demand of my vessel?
I don't remember asking you to, however, you just did again by seeking out that juicy dopamine rush that runs up your ballsack every time you flex how smart you are to random anons on the internet.

Go back to Playing HollowKnight
>And if I didn't? Or are you going to tell me that deep down, everyone wants to kill their enemies? I could just say deeper down, everyone wants to change or save their enemies. Unless you try to prove your "deeper down."
Regardless, even if you do not accept nor understanding, the only reason you'd spare your enemies is cause then, they have a bond to protect you against future enemies.

Stop romanticizing morality, it serves its purpose without your gay self insertions.

>>15616923
>I was only pretending to be retarded

>>15616923
Okay then in that case you are right. I admit I was a bit autistic.

>>15616938
I don't think science can solve morality. I simply said that the foundations of any moral system are arbitrary. This actually implies I don't agree with Harris, and that I can't prove any of them have privilege. What I'm arguing against is your dismissal of Harris because he uses science as a foundation.

>>15616963
You're sad. I hope you grow up to love other human beings. You've been poisoned by the culture of cut throat competition and the never ending rat race. Humanity can be your brotherhood.

>>15616923
>>15616979
lmao you got him to apologise what the fuck just happened on 4chan

>>15616805
Why should I do that? Why is it bad to be weak, or to believe you are in control? It's all just collisions and interactions between conglomerates of molecules, any and all human ascriptions are the equivalent of a monkey's stick probing around in some anthill. You claim that morality is an "all roads lead to Rome (evolution)" situation, a typical naturalist take. I don't see it as self-evident, unless you move the goal posts of what you mean.

>>15616838
I lack belief in a dark passenger.

>>15616866
"All standards are arbitrary, therefore my standard is correct." Wonderful. The attractiveness of utilitarianism doesn't make it correct. It's like saying God exists because its a beneficial idea that promotes the longevity of our species

>>15616878
Might ought to make right, but it doesn't always do so.

>morality are dictated by the selfish individual needs
Efilists believe that life is evil. If an efilist were to kill himself, he wouldn't benefit from that because he would cease to exist. He knows that he would cease to exist, so there isn't even the promise of a better existence because there would be no entity to experience that better existence. There is a benefit, but it's not connected to any individual. It's like baking a cake and not getting to eat it. You could claim that it helps others but that breaches the idea that it's motivated by selfish individual needs.

>>15616887
I said that to show that it's not impossible. Is it far fetched? Only time will tell, but current trends are promising.

>>15616902
So then not all morality benefits the individual. At least say that the promise of a benefit is a benefit enough. Then, if someone gets neither a benefit nor the promise of a benefit from a moral act, does that mean that all morality is derived from selfish individual desires?

>>15616979
Oh I think I confused the anons. Time to bed anyhow

>>15616918

I am a new age, with my own thoughts. An objectivist that draws power from the abyss, and worth from the material. I love life, and I love death.
I need not fantasies to cope with reality, I embrace its suffering and pain with open arms till it breaks me apart and disassociates me into the deepest realms of insanity, and then I raise above it to turn life into my little whore.
Cowardice is the only label I can think for you.

>>15616919
Your responses show no less ego than mine, at least I am honest about who I am. Just another narcissistic cunt getting a nice dopamine kick, getting all the attention like a big prima donna. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

>>15616805

I'm a determinist so your "you want to believe you are in control" bullshit doesn't apply to me. and if you think embracing chaos and materialism must necessarily go together you're a fucking clown

>>15617020
Yawn. Joker was written better.

>>15616153
Unfortunately your posting has revealed that you're in over your head and don't understand the terms of this discussion.

Ignore the words "how" and "why". Science is empirical. It's a descriptive endeavor. We can test and probe that the temperature of the earth of rising because of data that's verifiable. Nothing about this test demonstrates that we should do anything about this phenomena.

To drive the point home before someone says "to keep humans living into the future!" - any "reason" you can present for why a scientific study seems to suggest some type of behavior in response, these "shoulds" rest on axioms that are themselves unsupported by any data, just like religious beliefs.

>The world is warming
>Here's the data
>We must stop global warming
>Because we have to preserve human life for its own sake

The first two are observable facts. The second to are propositions about values. There's no scientific experiment that can establish why it's valuable to avoid global warming and perpetuate the human enterprise.

This is exactly what Sam Harris does:

He doesn't believe in the self or consciousness. He argued they're both illusions of our neurochemistry. But somehow he's on his podcast asking for monthly donations to tell people that Islam is a risk to "western values" and Christianity is a spook but Buddhism isn't and here's why you should use his meditation app. It's thought soup and he's committing the same leaps of faith that devout Catholics are while trying to convince scientismist young men he's doing something different.

>>15616993

No one has brainwashed me, I was born with a predisposition to be the way I am. The same way you were born to be obsessed with aesthetics, freedom to explore ideas and apparent obsession with romanticising every aspect of life.
Sadness and happiness serve their purposes too, you don't get it yet cause you are the type of person that things organization and structure are prisons.
Artists like you are all a bunch of sissy faggots, honestly.

>>15616703
>Why should I yield to the demands of the vessel I happen to find myself in?
you literally don’t have a choice and only schizos think otherwise

>>15616952
>>15616973
This is obviously a samefag. And can you actually point out what's wrong with my line of reasoning instead of using memes like a mentally invalid 12 year old.

>>15617066
we need ID's so schizos will stop accusing everyone of samefagging

Guys, free will doesn't exist either. Keep that in mind when you think of examples like "but then why shouldn't I kill people and take their money". You couldn't do that, because you're not this free center of decision independent of everything else. Unless you're a psychopath, if for some reason you embark upon the path of killing everyone and taking their money, all sorts of systems will engage and start beeping within yourself, and lo and behold, your behavior will change. These systems came about through millions of years of primate evolution and are designed to steer you away from such behaviors and maximize your chances of survival.

Why can't you kill people? It's not really because of your culture or your upbringing, it's because you are the descendants of those who thought it was lame to kill people.

>>15617037
>Ignore the words "how" and "why". Science is empirical. It's a descriptive endeavor. We can test and probe that the temperature of the earth of rising because of data that's verifiable. Nothing about this test demonstrates that we should do anything about this phenomena.
Incorrect. When the thermometer says its cold, I turn on the stove. I know, its crazy.
>The first two are observable facts. The second to are propositions about values. There's no scientific experiment that can establish why it's valuable to avoid global warming and perpetuate the human enterprise.
Yeah. Its not like the instinct of self-preservation is one of the main features of any living organism, god forbid.

>ITT: 18 year old kids calling each other faggot, pseud and pleb and using long words they read in a book once.

>>15616891
Explain to me why it is immoral or bad to be sick. You can't even justify that with science and materialism alone

>>15616963

>It happens as a side effect of the submissive at the bottom of the dominance hierarchies
Not always. Some morals don't benefit the survival of each individual. All morality is just subjective delusion where each person stops the burden of proof on one belief or another. For example, a man with pretenses of intellectual sophistication stops it at science, thinking it to have all morality subsumed under it. No shit, everything that happens in this world happens as a result of biological entities. I just think it's absurd that your morality cannot escape the bounds of egoism or what benefits the species as a whole. Once you know what moralities benefit the individual and species, you can conceive of morals that don't do the aforementioned. Then, biology is not an inescapable snag anymore.

>however, you just did again by seeking out that juicy dopamine rush that runs up your ballsack every time you flex how smart you are to random anons on the internet.
These discussions actually bring me displeasure. I don't even think you can prove that it objectively will bring me more satisfaction than pain, thereby attempting to prove that utilitarianism is inescapable.

>flexing how smart you are
I actually think the opposite of myself

And I've never played Hollow Knight, but it seems you have.

>Possibly, reading your rhetorical retorts is my main suspect.
Type that like you mean it

>the only reason you'd spare your enemies is cause then, they have a bond to protect you against future enemies
Show me in man's genetic code the gene that codes for this aspect of morality. What region of the brain performs this function? At what stage in human history did this moral idea evolve? Otherwise, it's just some facile, naturalistic Procrustean bed

>well, duh, the underlying urge is my selfish, individualistic naturalistic belief
>I can't prove it, but the only reason you're doing it is because of that
Then there must be a reason I think so. Show me what element of my biology makes me an automaton incapable of eluding my own programming?

>>15617090

>unironically using a stove as an example in a Harris thread

lel

>>15617066
uhh this is 4chan bro y u gotta take things so serious lol we're on the internet haha!

>>15616847

The way you carry yourself is that of a man who decided to put their dark side under the rug, instead of embracing it and keeping on a leash.
By my estimations, you must be one big passive aggressive simp IRL.

>>15617090
Your response has to do with not wanting to feel cold. That's just a basic preference for comfort which no one is arguing. You're choosing to avoid the fact that humans to make choices of significance. And science doesn't respond to the question of what you should do.
Being cold and turning the thermostat up isn't what's up for debate. You're not even addressing the core issue, which is the is/ought problem.

The "instinct of self preservation" isn't what's being spoken about. You're just proving the point. You're describing the way things are. "People self preserve", "people don't like discomfort". What does this have to do with making decisions? Everything you do as a thinking person is motivated by your personal understanding of some primordial evolutionary drive?

The thread was about Sam Harris specifically and you aren't responding to any specific points about him either. Do you believe that there is a self? That you're and experiencing person?

>>15617113
>Not always. Some morals don't benefit the survival of each individual
Yes, not to individuals without power. AKA bottom of the dominance hierarchy, thank you for agreeing with me.
>These discussions actually bring me displeasure
I see, I take you also enjoy pegging, humiliation and femdom. Deviring pleasure from pain is very common in cuckholds.
>Then there must be a reason I think so. Show me what element of my biology makes me an automaton incapable of eluding my own programming?

Very well, let's do a little experiment.
Go ahead and agree with me wholeheartedly without feeling like you are insulting yourself or betraying your own identity. It stands to reason, that if you are indeed in control you should be able to put your emotions aside, and do the unthinkable, just cause you decided to.
So prove me wrong.
So

>>15617143
>humans to make choices of significance

Trust me, me not having my feet cold has more significance to me than the survival of the human species 2000 years from now. I know, crazy. Its also like ''significance'' is depending on individual needs.

>>15617134

I see your point in regards to the post you just responded to but we are on the fucking internet on an anonymous Laotian basket weaving forum. Ultimately, this discussion is meaningless because neither you nor I will actually do anything with the knowledge we espouse to one another, nor really can we (or anyone for that matter). Treating internet fights as serious business is no different than getting unhealthily attached to a sports team and caring whether they win or lose: the only time it really matters is in a social situation since it builds up friendships in a way. Debating the philosophy of the mind with a person I don't even know is the height of pointlessness. This is purely a recreational activity, not a livelihood nor a requirement nor even a useful indifferent activity.

>>15617181

OK. You win. Enjoy your cozy feet obvious bigbrained man. You've bested me, concluded philosophy, and solved all the problems of the world with based science. I'll let you get back to your research.

>>15615925

who's JF? i wanna see that

>>15617113
>Explain to me why it is immoral or bad to be sick. You can't even justify that with science and materialism alone

Its immoral when you try to convince me to be sick like you, cause that is risking my individual selfish imperatives. Therefore, I lash out at you, the same way I'd spank the hands of someone of someone trying to inject me with heroin.

>>15616979
I agree. The foundation of all moral systems are arbitrary, science being one of them

>>15617020
I love life and death, too. I need to try to accept anything that comes my way, that is the only path to happiness. An eternal affirmation, development, and striving toward what ineffably gives me ardor.

>I need not fantasies to cope with reality
And I'm sure you'll get your trophy for that after death

>and then I raise above it to turn life into my little whore
Based

>Cowardice is the only label I can think for you
Sure. Your words have no power, call me what you will.

>your words show no less ego than mine
Interesting how you could surmise that by reading between the lines.

>at least I am honest about who I am
Why is that a good thing? Especially when you are the same as us, "another narcissistic cunt getting a nice dopamine kick."

>>15617046
Then it's not bad to be a dishonest coward and a hopeless romantic- I was born that way, right?

>>15617047
A caveat- every demand. That everything we do supposedly is done (including moral actions) to bring us more pleasure does not mean we ought to bring ourselves more pleasure. It just means that we do, it's an "is." I'm becoming growingly convinced that under atheism, there simply is no morality. It's all delusion accepted out of convention and weakness. You just want to live your short, primate's life in relative comfort and pleasure.

>>15617107
What if that book was the dictionary?

>>15617085
So all it takes is to become mentally ill and then I can oppose my programming? Funny, but there's nothing inherently bad about being mentally ill

>>15616902
even less so for those with power for they'd have to relinquish it in order to act in a moral way

>>15616153
>I disagree, give me one example where values and moral decisions cannot be based on scientific understanding of human evolutionary biology and neuroscience. Pro tip: You can't
>I disagree give me one example where values and moral decisions cannot be based on a theory which I can manipulate to subsume anything

>>15617198

Very impressive

>>15616141
>>science answers the how not the why.
>Are we on r*ddit? Wtf is this sophomoric shit? Yes, science regularly answers why. Because of science we know why colors mix the way they do, why a rock sinks but a human can float etc etc.
>Claims science can answer the why
>doesn't even understand the concept of necessity
delete your account

>>15617220

Yeah, which in the real world never happens. Which is why the rich don't go to jail for pedophilia, rape or tax evasion.
A.k.a I am right

>>15617222

Wow, just cause I can use my brains to manipulate reality into giving me what I want, doesn't mean you gotta be a butt about it

>>15614940
>What's wrong with it?
"I want you to imagine a topological map. That map is morality. And some people are at a top of a peak, and some people are in a valley. Therefore something something fMRI studies in pain justify CIA torture" That's essentially the book, it makes assumption after assumption backed by flimsy sciencey sounding metaphors.

>>15617137
I'm choking the life out of my dark side with every passing day. That's my leash, anon- my hands.

>>15617172
>I see, I take you also enjoy pegging, humiliation and femdom. Deviring pleasure from pain is very common in cuckholds.
You say this as if it's supposed to be an embarrassing or revealing thing, but you can't even justify why it's bad with your own ideas. It doesn't bother me because I know it's just a far-fetched accusation

>let's do a little experiment
Sure, I could agree with you. With this I'll leave the argument and concede to you. Cherish this victory, you might not get many in the future

>>15617206
I don't know if you are the previous anon who I've so gracefully laureled, but I will respond

Of course we all have individual imperatives. Even an individual Christian's beliefs won't conform perfectly to Christianity, for there will always be idiosyncrasies, either due to ignorance or due to strongly held beliefs. However, I don't agree that they are all selfish

>>15617188
>Ultimately, this discussion is meaningless because neither you nor I will actually do anything with the knowledge we espouse to one another, nor really can we (or anyone for that matter)
As far as I can tell, you think everything is fundamentally pointless. If we were having this discussion face-to-face at Starbucks you could just as easily say "well it doesn't really matter because we're just two assholes in an overpriced coffee shop." Maybe I'm just salty because you stopped responding to my mom-smothering line of questioning.

>>15617210
>Then it's not bad to be a dishonest coward and a hopeless romantic- I was born that way, right?

Correct, as long as I don't have to be exposed to it. Because, then, you are going against my selfish interests.

>>15615028
Idk, there's a lot of Peterson hate because he's now a meme, but he genuinely seems interested in discussion, hence the googling, etc.

>>15617277
>However, I don't agree that they are all selfish

You have to define what you mean by selfish, because it is clear you have a negative connotation associated to the word, which I do not share.

>>15617254
because the justice system is corrupt and morality is absent from the courts does not make those acts moral

>>15615028
>Why does Peterson so frequently enter debates where he has to google stuff half way through?
He likes to be hyper specific in his speech. He's probably googling definitions

>>15617317

Not for you, but it is certainly moral for them. Which is why they keep doing it, and it is why people still love Michael Jackson despite being a pedophile.

>>15617278
It wouldn't be pointless because it would be an actual face to face interaction (so at least there's that going for it), which would fall in line with it being a sort of good for both of us since there's the aspect of it being in line with out human nature. So in some sense, I would at least entertain the idea of continuing the conversation just for that alone. This is just two anonymous individuals who will probably never meet each other online ever again let along ever in real life arguing over a topic that they can't apply to their lives practically on an imageboard. Yeah it's fucking worthless. Just because you value it doesn't mean it has objective value in any sense. It's not getting anything accomplished in your life or mine; don't act like it is.

>>15617318
>He's probably googling definitions
>definitions
Such a blep.

>>15617357
*let alone in real life

>>15617351
People do things that they don't think are moral all the time.

>>15617318
definitions of concepts he brings into the table?

>>15616267
Sam Harris's mom was the lead producer of The Golden Girls
He's connected to Hollywood elites

>>15614929
Sam Harris is a great rationalizer but he's just looking to make sense of reality without nihilism and everyone who does this fails. Every philosopher is the same.

He's a political figure and therefore needs a concrete basis to work off of so he can say "homosexuality good", "bigots bad"

>>15617357
>an actual face to face interaction [wouldn't be pointless because it] [...] would fall in line with it being a sort of good for both of us since there's the aspect of it being in line with out human nature
...I'm sorry, are you not the mom-smothering advocate I was talking to earlier? Are you not the guy who held that what we call "morality" amounts to a calculated utilitarian exercise in self-gratification? I think you are, and I can't help but wonder why the actual fuck you suddenly turned into Aristotle. A thing that is "in line with our human nature" is therefore "good"?! Please oh please tell me I inadvertently talked you into the realities of classical essentialism, immanent teleology and natural law within like four posts.

>>15617351
stop trying to redefine moral you pleb tard

>>15617713
Whatever faggot. Later. I will never understand why people like you take the internet so seriously and don't care to find out.

>>15617800
>I will never understand why people like you take the internet so seriously
Because I don't accept that this is just "the Internet". I'm expressing philosophical views that I actually hold in real life. If anything, this is BETTER than a meatspace conversation because we can both articulate our positions more clearly and concretely.

>>15617925
Or not.

>>15617958
"Or not" what?

>>15617925
Well to me, philosophy is a social activity. It's always been since the days of Ancient Greece with the Stoas, the Lyceum and the Academy up till now with a group of friends discussing what they value most in life. It's not just about arguing and agreeing on what our philosophies are in a logically coherent manner (which clearly is part of the nature if the discipline) . It's a fundamental human interaction that deepens relationships and builds bridges where there were none. The practical and mundane human aspect of philosophy matters just as much as the abstract and more universal aspect and in the practical aspect, we as animals have needs that we need met and one of those needs is in person socialization. I can express philosophical views just about anywhere, but if I can't do it with a person and see their mannerisms and reactions to what I'm saying (whether that be approval, indifference or disapproval), it's kinda pointless to me since I truly can't know more about the person I'm talking to unless I see their face and get a glimpse into their mind. Maybe that's why you and I don't quite see eye to eye on this matter. The way we think about philosophy is diametrically opposed.

>>15617986
That's not me.

>>15617986
>"Or not" what?
>>15617925
>If anything, this is BETTER than a meatspace conversation because we can both articulate our positions more clearly and concretely.
>>15617958
>Or not.

>>15618050
>it's kinda pointless to me since I truly can't know more about the person I'm talking to unless I see their face and get a glimpse into their mind.
Even if I accept that you have the magic power to discern what is in someone's heart just by looking at them, this still suggests that you not only *haven't* but on principle *wouldn't* read a fucking book. Plotinus made some good points, but since we can't get a pizza with him or whatever we better just discard his shit.

>>15618386
Yeah, reading a philosophy book and talking to people about what I read and discussing it is something I do very often because that's what normal people do to start conversations. In fact, that's mostly what I do in my church's philosophy club so you can kindly fuck off with your stupid baseless assertions you picked up from God knows where and go talk to some other random faggot over the internet. Plus, it's more likely you can read how someone feels and whether they have actually done something or not in person than over the fucking internet, seeing that we literally have evolved strategies to pick up the former, but the latter is never going to happen.

>>15618511
Have you exposed your church's philosophy group to the ideas you've espoused here? The ones about how it's okay to kill your mom if it's in your personal self-interest?

>>15618590
>Have you exposed your church's philosophy group to the ideas you've espoused here? The ones about how it's okay to kill your mom if it's in your personal self-interest?
My old philosophy lecturer used to bring up how they enjoyed pulling parts off of cute animals to make them suffer, philosophy isn't about batting for your own team m80. These kinds of edgy arguments abound.

>>15618623
>My old philosophy lecturer used to bring up how they enjoyed pulling parts off of cute animals to make them suffer
What the dick? Is this someone who lectured at youe church? Please elaborate.

>>15618590
Yeah, we often talk to atheists and people that generally and the like because a circlejerk is never really good nor wanted since it inhibits intellectual growth in terms of exposing one to different ideas. We don't agree on much, but whatever. I also don't know what the fuck you are talking about with that last sentence. That's so vague it could literally be anything from you killing your mom for not giving you chicken tendies to you killing your mom because she's gone completely batshit and she's in the process of attacking you or someone else with a butcher's knife. Both are in your self-interest although in the latter situation, the death is justified since it wasn't about killing your mom so much as it was about self-defense or defending someone else.

The only reason I hate "morality is completely separated from our material world" fags is because 9/10 times it's used by people who didn't evolve the self-awareness part of their brains so everything they believe is moral just "conveniently" happens to align with the things that would give them the most material security/dopamine release.

>>15618679
Nah I'm butting in, but philosophy brings up a lot of examples and ideas that you probably think are really extreme.

>>15618685
I have sorta been assuming that I've been talking to an anon who affirmed that it would be morally neutral or even good to kill one's mother if it increased one's well-being earlier in the thread. See:
>>15616732
>>15616776
My apologies if that isn't you or your position.

>>15618752
You seem very tied to people here holding a specific opinion and it mattering if you're conversing with the same person.

>>15616659
Hitchens is certainly just as bad. I always found it strange how many people defend him on here.

>>15616780
Truth be told, I don't buy into Dennett's theory and used to have no respect for his ilk, but since I found out he's 7 feet tall my opinion of him has improved slightly.

>>15618752
It's fine.

>>15618792
He's a journo, so his level of brainletness kinda comes with the job.

>>15618761
>You seem very tied to people here holding a specific opinion
People tend to do this in general unless they're schizophrenic.
>and it mattering if you're conversing with the same person.
The fun thing about 4chan is that you can have a cogent discussion with nobody in particular. I wanted to talk to the "nobody" who thinks it's okay to kill your mom if you get something out of it, but I'm willing to talk to other nobodies too.

>>15618844
>People tend to do this in general unless they're schizophrenic.
In your very limited experience.

>>15618792
Wit goes a long way. His book on the clintons was a brutal takedown, his evisceration of talking heads is always amusing, and Islam IS evil as fuck

>>15617085
But people do kill people. Non-psychopaths kill people. People are supposed to have evolved to prize people who share their genes above all others, but people have killed their parents, siblings and children.
If people evolved to not do these things, how can they do them?

>>15616212
Is this a leftist meme?

>>15614929
I only read his book on free will, and I found that interesting.

>>15614929
>the book of mormon warrants more serious inquiry than this shit.
LOL

>>15618984
>Wit goes a long way.
I mean is this the same sense of "wit" people were using with Chris Hitchens?

>>15618794
He's not actually 7 feet tall; is he?

>>15618984

new atheist cuck detected. he's not witty. talking about bad shit the clintons do does not make you intelligent or insightful, it's common knowledge. he doesn't eviscerate shit. you don't know shit about islam if you think that.

>>15621583
With hands like coal shovels.

>>15615977

Came to post this, how can he ever recover? Some youtube-philosopher btfo's all his points in a single video.

>>15616744

Nye is quite clearly attempting to talk about Kant