/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13187753]

Did he solve philosophy?

[Anonymous No.13187756]

>>13187753
Yes.

[Anonymous No.13187768]

>>13187753
>()()()
Yeah

[Anonymous No.13187769]

>>13187753
No.

[Anonymous No.13187773]

>>13187769
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.13187782]

The Allegory of the Stove is probably the greatest philosophical insight ever achieved.

[Anonymous No.13187811]

>>13187753
>smart, insightful guy that can conduct some amazing interviews in real life
>writes awful books

He should stick to podcasts

[Anonymous No.13187816]

>>13187753
only brainlets disagree

[Anonymous No.13187829]

>>13187756
>>13187773
>>13187816
Name one thing original that Sam Harris did. All he does is recycle 200 year old arguments.

[Anonymous No.13187833]

>>13187753
Ethical Naturalism is bullshit. You need a stronger argument to justify meta-ethics and normative ethics. No matter how you try, you cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism. His arguments for ethical naturalism are complete bullshit.

Israel is an illegal apartheid state that should be dismantled. It is a big leech on USA's money. We not all "living in Israel". His foreign policy views just boil down to defending Israel.

A lot of what he says about Neuroscience is false and based on old functional localization paradigms that are being abandoned in favor of distributionist accounts of higher cognition.

I am a much better and interesting thinker than Sam Harris. All you guys know is worshiping Jews, honestly.

[Anonymous No.13187837]

>>13187833
>how you
how hard you*
>We not all
We are not all*

[Anonymous No.13187846]

>>13187833
>A lot of what he says about Neuroscience is false and based on old functional localization paradigms that are being abandoned in favor of distributionist accounts of higher cognition.
lmao imagine thinking this

[Anonymous No.13187878]

>>13187846
Miguel Nicolelis has a more accurate view of the brain when it comes to higher cognitive functions.

[Anonymous No.13187918]

>>13187833
Turning anything to a discussion about jews is to broadcast that you're a brainlet that can't discuss ideas. What are you doing on lit?

[Anonymous No.13187948]

>>13187918
refusing to talk about jews is like refusing to talk about Wasps, you are not going to understand recent history

[Anonymous No.13188491]

I love his movie 'Zoolander'. The gas fight scene is HILARIOUS!

[Anonymous No.13188498]

>>13187811
that's it.

[Anonymous No.13188499]

>>13187753
No.

[Anonymous No.13188514]

>>13187846
Imagine holding on to outdated models cause it hurts your feelings.

[Anonymous No.13188528]

>>13187753
You guys may not like it, but Harris is basically accomplishing the preliminary work of a fully neuroscience based knowledge of consciousness and 99% of other things previously assigned to philosophy

neuroscience inevitably absorb what is left of philosophy into it and, unlike philosophy, be able to give actual answers and definitions rather than wild, impotent speculations

while Harris himself may not accomplish this, he is a pioneer thinker and pivotal in the expansion of neuroscience into the domains of ethics, consciousness, ontology, etc.

[Anonymous No.13188604]

>>13187753
Yes, and it's the Final Solution.

[Anonymous No.13188760]

Worse hack than Peterson

[Anonymous No.13188766]

>>13187753
He couldn't even solve an email to Chomsky.

[Anonymous No.13188771]

Leave Harris to anyone. This one isn't worth my time.

[Anonymous No.13188778]

>>13187782
You're so wonderful I think I'll never use this word again to describe a person.

[Anonymous No.13188779]

>tfw to intelligent to watch sam harris

why is he so much more successful than me when i'm smarter than him?

[Anonymous No.13188783]

>>13188779
Born wealthy. Has a large family and knew a lot of other wealthy people so he had connections. That's mostly what matters.

[Anonymous No.13188798]

>>13187753
I like his Free Will book because it causes predictable netherflummoxing

[Anonymous No.13188807]

>>13188798
What is that?

[Anonymous No.13188812]

>>13187833

Cringe

[Anonymous No.13188826]

>>13187948
You literally learned about world history based off stormfag infographs on a mongolian sheep hearding enthusiast imageboard

[Anonymous No.13188839]

>>13188826
Anybody before the 20th century(purely coincidentally the time when Jews came to prominence in Western academia and press) will tell you the same thing.

[Anonymous No.13188858]

>>13187773
t.dumbass memelord

[Anonymous No.13188935]

>>13187753
Unironically yes.

[Anonymous No.13188994]

hes a neocon therefore every word that comes out of his mouth is wrong

[Anonymous No.13189050]

Yeah he did and it's such a shame to see smart people disagree with him on the basis that he cannot build a self-justifying morality which is a bar so high that no other science can clear.

For example, in a discussion with Sean Carroll, Sam tried to get him to agree that the worst possible misery for everyone is "bad" and we should work to move away from it, to which Sean Carroll answered: "but who's to say suffering is bad?"...

[Anonymous No.13189090]

>>13189050
I think what Sean Carrol means, in that context, is that in a purely naturalist and physicalist world, one lacks a true metric by which to judge suffering as bad. That is, suffering becomes neutral, in and of itself, and whether one labels and identifies it as bad falls down squarely on his or her own individual preferences. And since there are individuals who do take glee in suffering, who is to say that is 'bad'? Do you understand? The idea that suffering is intrinsically bad, in and of itself, in a purely indifferent, neutral flux of this world is nonsense because one interprets, labels, or identifies it as "bad". It just is, at least in naturalist models of reality which I disagree with.

You cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism no matter how hard to you try. Now a better philosopher than Sam Harris who also tried to reconcile normativity with naturalism was Wilfrid Sellars, but he failed too.

One needs some kind of "mystical" metaphysical basis for meta-ethics and normativity. It is more internally consitent to be a Gnostic than a physicalist secularist humanist when discussing what is "bad".

[Anonymous No.13189117]

>>13189090
This is not a difficult problem. Sam's reasoning is that the break between descriptive and normative claims is arbitrary and demonstrates a 300 year confusion using tricks of language (as Wittgenstein would say).

Sam has a few assumptions laid out in The Moral Landscape, and one of them is as follows:
If there exists a world where every conscious creature suffers for as long as it can, as much as it could, and there was no silver-lining for this suffering and no lessons learned. If the word "bad" has any meaning then this, we could agree is "bad", and anything else by definition is "better".

That is his inflection point from descriptive to normative claims but if you don't agree (like Sean Carroll), I don't see any rational basis for your intuition.

[Anonymous No.13189144]

>>13187753
No, he's just some common Jew hypocrite.
>hey bill maher and ben affleck let me banter about the mooslims
>[president is elected who attempts to actually do something about it]
>hey bill maher this travel ban is much racism and we need more good mooslims

[Anonymous No.13189147]

>>13189050
retard

[Anonymous No.13189174]

>>13189117
>Sam's reasoning is that the break between descriptive and normative claims is arbitrary
No, it's not. You come off as someone into STEM who has no real nuanced philosophical background.
>If there exists a world where every conscious creature suffers for as long as it can, as much as it could, and there was no silver-lining for this suffering and no lessons learned. If the word "bad" has any meaning then this, we could agree is "bad", and anything else by definition is "better".
It's a terrible thought-experiment when you start realizing some conscious beings would debate among themselves to preserve status quo, have more suffering, or to lessen suffering. In a purely physicalist world, you have no metric to pick which preference is truer or not. You have to have a kind of soteriology to base an ethics in.
>I don't see any rational basis for your intuition.
There is no rational basis for any meta-ethics or normative ethics in a purely naturalist, physicalist vision of the world.

[Anonymous No.13189243]

>kike

Ahem...

[Anonymous No.13189251]

>>13189243
careful... that's the only thing I get banned for on this board

[Anonymous No.13189794]

>>13188528
>neuroscience inevitably absorb what is left of philosophy into it
>actual answers

[Anonymous No.13189816]

>>13189243
Easy man, his problem is not he is a jew, the real problem is that he is an american.

[Anonymous No.13189827]

I unironically listen to his podcast regularly. Very good.

[Anonymous No.13189975]

>>13188528

You clearly either know nothing of neuroscience or/and philosophy. Science and philosophy are two different tools to answer different questions. No development in neuroscience can answer questions on how to appreciate life or what our purpose is.

As for Harris, his work is ultimately the reframing of old ideas on conciseness and morality and his manipulation of people's ignorance to shock them with some "cool brain facts."

There's plenty of neurosurgeons and neuroscience who are religious or spiritual. Yet, you don't see them pretending to be able to answer all the questions poised through philosophy.

[Anonymous No.13189981]

>>13187753
look at his ears bro ahhahahaha HAHfhashHshhahAHHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.13189989]

Why does he make leftist journalists so mad, what power does he possess that makes them throw a fucking conniption? Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin do it to them too.

[Anonymous No.13189990]

>>13189975
>No development in neuroscience can answer questions on how to appreciate life or what our purpose is.
you can literally answer those questions through a neuroscientific-informed calculus.

Example: one day a scientist or neo-psychologist (or however we ll call this person) will be able to study your brain, understand how you think and feel based on a database of billions of people for which we studied and registered brain activities correlated to subjective explanations of their neural correlates together with all the biology and neural activity in their brains. This professional, after a comprehensive study of your brain activity and the bio-physiology of your brain during a period of time, will be able to know you better than your--self, will be able to convince you that your consciousness is just a epi-phenomenon. Only then, once you have realize that he can manipulate your thoughts, feelings, memories at a very subtle level of detail you will realize that what you call a "subjective" experience of yourself is an "objective" activity of your brain. I claim that experiencing this scenario I just described will change the way you "feel" and "understand" the world and our "self"... and we'll accept that consciousness can be explained by our cognitive activity and our brain physiology.

and therefore, all previously "philosophic" questions can be treated via medicines/medical technologies

[Anonymous No.13190048]

>>13189990
>after a comprehensive study of your brain activity and the bio-physiology of your brain
The complexity of the brain might well be beyond our comprehension, we don't know. Before you resort to "A.I ". "big data", or more buzzwords devoid of any meaning, our understanding of the brain is extremely minimal to develop models to predict "what you think and "knowing one-self".

Furthermore, even if this technology was created. Your argument boils down to the same old chant that science is the only way to find objective truth and that such replaces psychology. Take a psychology 101 class to see why that's wrong.

[Anonymous No.13190059]

>>13189975
>No development in neuroscience can answer questions on how to appreciate life or what our purpose is.
profound cringe

[Anonymous No.13190139]

>Sam "our wars are always just" Harris
No thank you. Mental gymnastics to come up with a moral justification for american imperialism.

[Anonymous No.13190145]

>>13187753

He looks like a human ferret

[Anonymous No.13190177]

>>13190145
>tfw Sam Harris is actually a kitsune

[Anonymous No.13190183]

>>13189975
>No development in neuroscience can answer questions on how to appreciate life or what our purpose is.
lmao cmon dude. is it really that hard to understand how neuroscience could provide answers to that?

[Anonymous No.13190184]

>lets nuke the middle east
yeah, i'm thinking he's /ourguy/

[Anonymous No.13190189]

>>13189989
He doesn't care about posturing where there should be none.

[Anonymous No.13190194]

What a garbage thread this is

[Anonymous No.13190198]

>>13189990
>and therefore, all previously "philosophic" questions can be treated via medicines/medical technologies

One thing is being able to understand the subjectivity of an individual through objective means, another is deliberately choosing to influence its future course of action. It would be pure violence, albeit subtle, to do the latter.
The choice must remain of the person, and its in the domain of psychotherapy to make the person evaluate its subjective interpretation of events and future course of action, not medicines or medical technologies.

[Anonymous No.13190201]

concur, stupid thread. get out of this board, wrong board

[Anonymous No.13190283]

>>13190183
>>13190059
>>13189990

This is the same person.

[Anonymous No.13190414]

>>13190139
You must be really out of shape if you consider that gymnastics. Also, poor reading/listening comprehension if you think 'non-interventionism would have been worse in many cases' is the same as 'just'.

[Anonymous No.13191048]

>>13187833
shut the fuck up cringy autist

[Anonymous No.13191060]

>>13187833
anti-semitic and problematic post

[Anonymous No.13191083]

>>13187833
>ethics needs to be rationally justified
*laughs in pragmatism*

[Anonymous No.13191150]

>>13189975
You never get to science without discovering or manufacturing concepts, which is what philosophy does. Creates concepts, describes systems using them. Science is refining that description until you have a model with predictive capacity. They are different tools, but not for different questions.

"How" is always a question that can be answered by science. In this case, it be answered as soon as you have a relatively accurate model of the mind and/or consciousness. All you need to do is figure out what sort of outcomes you want, and then optimize for those outcomes using that model.