/lit/ - Literature

I can unironically say that any given poster on /lit/ will probably contribute more to intellectual discourse than Sam Harris ever has or will

>>6476525
>disproving religions
>criticizing Islam
>providing scientific morality
>providing a new framework for secular spirituality

>>6476528
None of those are new or good ideas. The Enlightenment has been over for decades. Multicultural != secular.

>>6476528
>disproving religions
Thank goodness! For a moment there I thought that someone was seriously trying to defend Sam Harris

>>6476552
But I am.
>>6476550
They are facts, not ideas.

>>6476516

I want to punch his face in because he looks like a douche.

>>6476552
What's there to defend? He IS one of the most important intellectuals today.

He has degrees in both Neuroscience and Philosophy, from some of the best colleges on this planet. He'd destroy you in a debate on any topic, and would do so without breaking a sweat or raising his voice.

>>6476585
You couldn't beat eggs.

>>6476594

Sam Harris is less than eggs.

>>6476599
And so are you, you weak, little negroid.

>>6476603

>>6476585
Funny coming from you, Foucault

>>6476606

>>6476610

Anyone ever noticed that when a thinker is widely reject by /lit/ the only way their fans can find to protect their idol and not risk damaging their egos is to assume a semi-sarcastic, deliberately exaggerated worship of the person, to which any rebuttal will seem angry, naive and humorless?

It happened to Stirner, Rand, Evola, Spengler, etc.

>>6476613

Again, not my face. And I'm not going to post my face either cause let's face it.

That dude doesn't look too bad, though.

>>6476613
Is that really him?

>>6476528
>providing scientific morality

In other words, attempting to destroy the non-prescriptive neutrality necessary to actual scientific methodology and replacing it with a New Atheist cult of pop science worship.

>>6476620

Nah.

>>6476613
Goddamn, Foucault looks like a bitch

>>6476625

That's not fucking me

>>6476617
>Stirner is widely rejected by lit

Are you stupid? lit loves Stirner. Its just that he's so fun to take the piss out of, somthing Marx first realized decades ago.

>>6476528
>providing a new framework for secular spirituality

An oxymoron. Taking MDMA in the woods and having a muh feels epiphany isn't a genuine way of attaining knowledge about the world. Introspection perhaps, but that's it. Even disregarding that, what kind of loser douche takes MDMA alone in the woods? It's a fucking party drug.

>>6476622
Those words are too big for you.

>>6476636

Do you enjoy reading Scientific American?

>>6476632
He studied with Tibetan lamas in the Himalayas and with Indian gurus, and with Theravada teachers. He basically traveled all the world in search of spiritual truth. LSD was just one little exp. he had that triggered the search. But Sam Harris got enlightened by a Dzogchen Buddhist teacher.

>>6476636
>big words

The fact that you believe in this concept shows what a pleb you are. I am so mentally above you.

>>6476643
>I am so mentally above you.

>>6476642

I could travel the entire world ten times over and be no closer to finding "truth" than what I already expected to come from it. And that's obvious with Harris, that he found exactly what he thought all along.

>>6476649
Read his Waking Up.

>>6476651

I skimmed it. Wasn't very good tbh. There are plenty of better books to read on the subject.

>>6476613

>>6476618
>chinless, wide nose, dark skin, brown eyes
>not bad looking

I can't even tell if Harris or Green threads are the worst threads on /lit/ anymore.

>>6476651

No.

>>6476661

#me

>>6476664

I mean he could be worse and I'm really unsure that most of you look any better.

>>6476528
>scientific morality

Top Kek

>>6476613

what a puny little twink fuccboi

>>6476684

How many times must I say that's not me. I live in San Diego. There would be no reason for me to where that kind of shit.

>>6476645
Responding with an image macro shows what a typical imageboard user you are. Sam Harris is the philosophical equivalent of a hobo masturbating in a public street, screaming about his LSD flashbacks to people who consider him nothing more than an unpleasant fact of life; I myself read far greater philosophers you've never even heard of before. To call you plebeian was far too generous, for plebeians were citizens in Rome. You are a slave, I am the greatest genius who has ever existed, exists or will exist. Compared to the absolute yardstick of my intelligence, you are scarcely above a vegetable. A mineral, even. It is only due to my boundless humility that I have graced you with a response. You are a cretinous imbecile. A buffoon. Your cognitive ass cheeks are on display for all the world to see, shitting nothing but hollow memes coprophagically recycled from the herd. I am so mentally above you.

>>6476707
You sound like one of the people posted on /r/iamverysmart ... you sound like an autistic 19 year old who thinks he's a super genius for reading a few pages of German philosophy.

>>6476672
Imagine for a second a universe where every conscious creature suffers as bad as it can for as long as it can.

Is that bad?

>>6476739
No, it's not bad. Not objectively bad. I wouldn't like it though. But that's a different thing.

>>6476734
>/r/iamverysmart
>you sound like an autistic 19 year old

Praising a neo-con New Atheist, namedropping asubreddit, using autism as an epithet, and not being able to recognize statements that are obviously facetious. It's a shame I'm not as mature as you. If anything, your struggle of minds against my own has further embedded yourself yourself in the crusted mass of vomit that constitute 4chan's board culture.

>>6476516
No. He is a worthless hack, a subtier popscience scribbler, but not a philosopher.
I'd like to prove my point with arguments, but you would just ignore them and use images macros and memes.
I would like to show my disdain by using an appropriate image, but you will just ask for the exact same arguments you blatantly ignored when others Anons posted them in the first place.
So fuck off, and here's your complementary pic.

>>6476739
>Is that bad?

Subjectively, yes. However, we have no frame of reference for objective morality, because it only applies to subjects. A universe of abiotic rocks would be considered morally neutral. Even if this were considered universally bad by sentient life, it wouldn't be the same thing as being objective. In any case, this isn't a scientific question.

>>6476781
Just dropping by to say I like what you're doing in this thread and I want to subscribe to your mailing list.

>>6476582
They aren't facts, though. It isn't a fact that science has superceded religion in public life, and it isn't a fact that a scientifically proven and objectively correct moral code has been formulated. It also isn't a fact that Harris has formulated one.
What facts are you talking about?

>>6476669
>I'm really unsure that most of you look any better.

>>6477046

You probably don't. Let's be honest.

People on here never post valid criticisms of this guy. I find him very humble and a good speaker. I especially like his assertion that the argument and it's source should be treated separately. An idea most ad hominem cunts on here are unable to grasp.

>>6477215

No you're the cunt

>>6476632

Introspection is all he's talking about when he discusses spirituality. Nice strawman though.

>>6476628
i can tell by your agitation that it actually is you

>>6476528
I am pretty sure the notion of morality has always attempted to be scientific,
but I suppose what you are talking about is "Science!"(c)tm property of Richard Dawkins.

>>6477547
I'm surprised the thread went on for so long without someone posting the comics

>>6476516

>I posted it again!

>>6476528
>providing a new framework for secular spirituality
>framework for secular spirituality
>secular spirituality
>spirituality
disgusting

DUDE I JUST HAD THE DANKEST SHROOMS MANG. FUCK ALL RELIGIONZ MAN! SCIENCE IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRUTH. JUST LISTEN FUCKING CARL SAGAN AND OPEN YOUR EYES TO BEAUTY OF THE UNIVERSE AND SACRED GEOMETRY BRO. MEDITATION CAN OPEN YOUR THIRD EYE MAYNE. #YOLO

>all this butthurt over a man who honestly looks like a fucking chimp

the strange case of dr. kekyll and lost my sides

>>6477660

Why are you such a lazy piece of shit? Why can't you expend the tiniest effort to actually look up all the definitions of that word? Or a bit more effort and look up what Harris himself means when he uses that word.

>>6477661
SMOKE GREEN CRACK EVERYDAY DECALCIFY YOUR PINEAL GLAND AND WATCH ANIME WITH NO SUBTITLES.

>>6476516
>listening to intellectuals

heh, how old are you?

https://youtu.be/ERj3QeGw9Ok

>>6477661

I understand strawmanning when the opponent is intimidating, but why bother when he is (supposedly) so dumb and his arguments so easily dismantled?

>>6476617
Actually, I always thought /lit/'s vision of Stirner was "He's right, but it also easy as fuck to mock him".

Anyone speaking with the fury and amplity he does is easily mocked, me and my friends do it to Debord all the time, despite being very influenced by him

>>6477661
DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

>>6476516

So what are some of Harris' actual arguments?

>>6477745

Islam is a more dangerous religion than the other major religions (but he considers all of them harmful)

Free will doesn't exist

Scientific method can be used (currently in a limited capacity) to determine what is the best possible course of action for well-being of conscious beings

I can't wait for the christianity meme to pass

>>6477705
Harris is the king of /lit/. People are just really upset about that so they shitpost and whine about thought experiments.

>>6477547
>>6477572

amazing.

>>6477793
I can't wait for you to have a long life, die at an old age and then suffer eternity in hell in regret

>>6477793
>2000 year old institution of God's truth on earth
>meme
pick one

>>6477572

>comic accusing Harris of strawmanning strawmans Harris

I like it, very meta.

Sam Harris is the stupid caricature people imagine when they use the insult "scientism" except he's actually real

>>6477974
That's not a strawman, dude, Harris actually talks like that.

>>6477692
>Muh Climategate

Opinion discarded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

I can't tell to what degree /lit/ actually enjoys this new Scientism (aside from a meme-perspective).

Reading Zizek's lectures on Determinism, and then Harris', it should be obvious which field is more aligned with an actual philosophical process of understanding things.

>>6477762

Ok those are conclusions, what are the arguments he uses to reach those conclusions.

Big deal, Buddhism is the rejection of spirit and body. What he needs to realize is there is a greater spiritual entity from which we all spring

>>6478711

Even as a rather direct speaker it takes him around an hour to give proper arguments for those positions in his talks yet you expect some random anon to explain his positions to you?

How about you watch one of his talks or read something where he explains his positions instead you lazy piece of human garbage.

>>6478546

>"solve all problems ever with neuroscience"

Obvious strawman

>"we really should just attack them and destroy them"

Obvious strawman

>"a state that outlawed religion, it would be paradise"

Obvious strawman

>>6476707
>ask me what philosophy i read, maybe i will let you guess teehee

>>6478733

I just figured that since people were commenting on him that they would know what his arguments were. I hate his face a bit to much to watch a full hour long video of his. Does he have any articles I can find on jstor or something ?

>>6478757

The closest to that is his blog where some articles are him defending his positions like these:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/clarifying-the-landscape

>>6477669

Why are you on the side a liberal

>>6476806

Morality can apply only to subjects and still be objective. If there are epistemologically objective facts to know about ontologically subjective reality, then that's objective - so long as there are rules which apply to all subjects equally.