/lit/ - Literature

>>4589448
Confucius rapacked old ideas and his works are good.
He did, it is shit.

Read this instead.

>>4589448
>repackaging older ideas
yes
>in better ways?
no


lol just kidding, i've never read a single thing he's written

He's anti-science. So I guess that makes him a "good" philosopher.

>>4589505
isn;t he the guy who's all about scientific morality?

>>4589513
He uses the word "science" a lot but he has obviously no fucking idea what it means.

>>4589528
Weird since he has a PhD in neuroscience.

Pretty sure he has more leg to stand on than you do.

Blue steel

>>4589597
He never talks about neuroscience. All he publishes is preschool tier sophistry dealing with metaphysics and recently ethics.

>>4589505
>Sam Harris
>anti-science

u w0t m8

>>4589603
And that backs you your claim that he is anti-science how?

Sounds like you haven't read his shit either.

>>4589602
>>4589610
He intentionally mislabels his puerile ramblings as "science" when they are clearly not.

>>4589617
Do you have an example?

>>4589617
Yes, you've demonstrated you do not like him. Now back up your statements please if you want to be taken seriously.

All you are doing is showing off your bias, not proving your point.

>>4589617
It's definitely not you who will decide what is science and what is not. I'm 100% certain that you have no formal education in science.

He really does just repackage things for a popular audience. Take the Moral Landscape. His metaethics is a complete rehash of reductionist arguments, nothing really original at all besides some inflated rhetoric. I think people who find his stuff shocking or edgy don't know that this stuff has been debated to death in academic philosophy. I really don't mind the guy too much but he makes a lot of inflammatory remarks based on some shaky moral principles.

>>4589623
>>4589624
Why don't you prove me wrong?

>>4589625
I got recently accepted into a PhD programme. Have fun with your projections, you mentally deficient piece of shit. That "hurr durr she has an opinion I don't like, therefore she must be dumb" garbage attitude only underlines your lack of maturity.

>>4589651
>PhD
Yeah right. PhD in women's studies I bet.

I am sorry, I dont take seriously new atheism

>>4589671
>muh bible

>>4589651
>PhD in misplaced burden of proof
>any job you want
>300k starting

>>4589673
NEW atheism

>>4589655
>Harris completed a PhD in cognitive neuroscience at UCLA.[17][21] He used fMRI to explore whether the brain responses differ between sentences that subjects judged as true, false, or undecidable, across a wide range of categories including autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual statements.[82]

Sure dwarfs your illustrious career of shitposting on 4chan, wouldn't you say?

>>4589651
Proving you wrong would require you to actually put forth an argument. All you have given is an opinion.

>>4589671
He's also written stuff on metaphysics and ethics but as was mentioned in this thread none of it is terribly insightful. The new atheism movement is silly insofar as it is militant and narrow-minded but most of Harris' writings on other religions are basically common sense objections to dogma. He just does it in a really obnoxious way.

>>4589651

For someone who has apparently smart enough to get into a PhD programme you really haven't worked out just how stupid and defeatist it is for a woman to try and defend her right to speech in this insecure shithole.

Why you even bother is beyond me.

>>4589651

For someone who is apparently smart enough to get into a PhD programme you really haven't worked out just how stupid and defeatist it is for a woman to try and defend her right to speech in this insecure shithole.

Why you even bother is beyond me.

>>4589651
Not the people you were responding to but you're not wrong. (though I wouldn't call them "puerile ramblings" necessarily)

A lot of what he calls scientifically-derived principles are basically glorified philosophical intuitions. It seems like it's his idea that anything using reasoning is science which obviously is not the case.

>>4589448
I thought Gaylord Focker was a nurse?

>>4589705
Are you mentally challenged? My post was not directed at Harris. It was directed at the common sense guy who got accepted into a PhD programme in women's studies.

>>4589724
Ah! I didn't even bother to read the post you're replying to and just assumed it was an attack on Harris.

All apologies.

(BTW, you're right to point out he never said what his PhD "programme" is in.)

>>4589448
>How is he as a philosopher?

not

>>4589448
>Are his thought insightful and new?

no, no

>Or does he good a good job or repackaging older ideas in better ways?

no

>>4589732
>If I knock X, that means I'm automatically better than X!

So Ben Stiller finally broke into philosophy.

>>4589732
no u

>>4589732
Such a well thought out and elaborate explication you provided.

>>4589819
>>4589721
>>4589601
Mangnum-mind

>>4589651

>she

>>4589633
It's unfortunate how many tone arguments Harris gets.

>>4589719
A lot of people mistake the derivation part, and the deciding what to derive part. Science does both.

>>4589448
He's a neuroscientist, not a philosopher. Doesn't mean he doesn't have incredibly valuable insights into how our brains work

>>4590664
>yfw catholics spend semesters studying sophistry to "disprove" nietzsche

it's no like scientists spend years taking classes to "disprove" aquinas. makes you wonder

>>4590671
Excuse me, you seem to be confusing good philosopher, with philosopher.

>>4590664
>It's unfortunate how many tone arguments Harris gets.
to be fair knowing how to write effectively is a big part about writing
and even if you're a total moron you can always just fall back on dry, academic-standard writing
there isn't really much excuse to get a lot of tone arguments if you're actually trying to avoid them.

>>4590685
There's no way to give an atheist argument that doesn't offend religious people, I'm sorry. They're the most indignant, easily offended retards on the planet.

>>4590688
but obviously that's not a matter of tone

>>4590696
Yes it is, because religious people find any tone that doesn't accept their views as a nasty, shrill one.

>>4590698
but tone can't accept views

>>4590702
or rather
tone is independent of the topic, it is built on top of the topic as a manner of expression
the topic is being attacked by your proposed fanatics, not the tone

>>4590702
You're missing the point, tone is fucking irrelevant. You can have a nasty tone or a pleasant tone, no matter what, you're going to have religious people saying "You're such a nasty person" because you're criticizing core parts of themselves and their world view.

>>4590705
Well then I hate religious people's tone for telling me that I'm living my life wrong, their tone is shitty and they should all go fuck off.

It goes both ways.

>>4590706
Yes, I know tone is irrelevant to your example. I thought you didn't understand that, because otherwise I can find no connection between avoiding "tone arguments" and your fanatic religious entity

>>4590685
He writes eloquently.

He angered mostly anti-imperialists who confused him for a neocon. Nothing philosophical about it.

>>4590712
All religion is inherently fanatical.

>>4590719
well that's not true

>>4590722
Yes it is.

>>4590724
buddhists are like the calmest, most open-minded stereotypical people there is

>>4590729
Who are still fanatical. Do you understand what that term means?

>>4589448
He doesn't clam to b a philosopher

>>4590733
SHUT UP I'M TRYING TO STRAW MAN

>>4590732
fanatic implies that they're completely focused on the one thing
which buddhists aren't
some are I suppose
but not even monks really
they're practicing buddhism through martial arts and tea
that's not fanatic
its incorporated ideals but its hardly fanatic
some people probably built everything around the religion
others build the religion around everything
the first is fanatic, the latter, not really

>>4590735
ohok then

>>4590743
You don't think an ascetic life to achieve a goal is fanatical? Okay..

>>4590729
There are violent, dogmatic Buddhist groups. The example Harris gives is of Jains is better.

>>4590757

Harris great he is one of the only speakers I feel scared and calm after listening to.

>>4590757
Who are fanatically non-violent

>>4590765
They're open minded about truth. That's applied to their own religion, which leads to tolerance of other religions and philosophies.

A lot of good its done them, in a world of fanatics.

real philosophy leads to some kind of recognition of the metaphysical or of god.
Half assed philosophers are good logicians, good abstract thinkers who are capable of introspection. They're good and ok, but a little questionable.
Atheists, however, are not usually good philosophers. It does not suffice to read plato and aristotle either, they will usually not be able to resists their urge to rebel - rebel against authority, against norms and patterns in philosophy they percieve as outdated or too conservative. Because of that they do not really count as philosophers.

>>4590802
OF COURSE YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE SOME CONVOLUTED SENSE OF "GOD" BUT THE POINT OF NEW ATHEISTS ISN'T TO ARGUE AGAINST spinoza OR AGAINST WHAT EINSTEIN SAID, ITS TO ARGUE AGAINST EXACTLY THE RELIGION THAT IS DESTRUCTFUL, HARMFUL, AND NEEDS TO BE DISPLACED BY MODERN MORALlTY.

I'm always surprised how much time /lit/ spends discussing this guy. There are far better ethical theorists out there with more interesting and insightful things to say and yet this guy keeps popping up.
Don't tell me this board is infested with nu-atheist types.

>>4590814
Actually it's worse, it's infested with pro-Christianity, Catholics, and pro-religious types.

You guys think Harris is edgy? This bitch would tear out your jugular and leave a caustic neo-Humean critique on your quivering functionalist corpse.

>neurophilosophy
>not even once

>>4590890
Edgy like a hugbox. Completely mangles Harris' points.

watch?v=8_4RV7V5Dzs

>>4590802
>'urge to rebel' makes them bad philosophers
>'urge to rebel' is just another way of saying "being skeptical" or to defame someone who simply doubts

right.

>real philosophy leads to some kind of recognition of the metaphysical or of god.
go suck a dick, because this isn't true and you know it. fucking idiot.

>>4590814
It's not a matter of /lit/ discussing this guy; it's a matter of newfags wanting to discuss whatever's pop and semi-on-topic. That and anons that get off on being le rusemen. Like this guy. >>4590817

>>4590817
>>4591158

He's not really a ruseman though. It's unfortunately true. /lit/ is so edgy that it has recognized that atheism is on the rise, so now it's time to start rationalizing inherently unjustifiable beliefs again. So whereas most of 4chan and not to mention reddit is atheist and progressive, it's easy to guess what the bitter pseudointellectuals and armchair philosophers over at /lit/ will think.

>>4591164
I don't think that's true. I would imagine most of the people who criticise atheism here are atheists themselves who aren't particularly fond of the strain that has arisen since 2001 which is what could be classified as *dogmatic* in it's particular outlook and tactics.

>>4591194
Sure, there's a lot of those too but there are a lot of pro-religious people here too who then erroneously think that they are in good company.

>>4591205
I guess I just don't frequent those threads often enough come across them.
Religion Vs. Atheism debates bore me.

>>4591216

Strange, as it's one of the most fascinating debates in the history of philosophy, I think. Even those who barely have anything of worth to say about it are at least peripherally interesting to listen to. But that's just my two cents.

>>4591222
I went through my own personal nu-atheist phase. So I've been over those debates more times than I can even count. So I've been round the block many, many times as far as the "great" debate is concerned and I generally never find anything within such debates that I haven't come across before and generally these debates tend to be about who can *yell* the loudest about which presupposition is the best.
I really don't want to start one of those debates right now, so if this post kicks one off, I won't reply.

>>4591228

No, I agree with you actually. On second thought, very little new ever really gets said. But I still find it interesting nonetheless but completely get what you're saying.

>>4591222
there is nothing interesting in asking whether or not we have a skydaddy because if we do, we really can't tell, so it really doesn't matter.

>>4591231
Cool... different strokes and all that.

>>4591237
It's interesting because people base their moral understanding on it and guide their life in view of salvation.

>>4591228
>Others should know what I know.

Still going through a phase.

>>4590664
I have no idea if you're here anymore, but about the derivation thing: do you mean science can tell us what we ought to derive in the moral sense or the non-moral sense?

>>4593148
It's up to the practitioner.

>>4594005
cool quote

>>4590733
While that may be true he has written works that fall under the category of "philosophy" and which only touch on his main degree of neuroscience.

Quacks like a duck and all that.

>>4589845
IT HAD TO HAPPEN. THERE'S NO AVOIDING IT. THIS IS 4CHAN