Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.5346186]

Why does /lit/ dislike this author so much? Personally I think his books are well written and very informative. Ignoring his political beliefs (I don't care, I'm not american), I'd say he is a good educator in neuroscience (where he has a PhD), rational thinking and philosophy. I just finished his books "Free Will" and "The Moral Landscape" and I have to say his arguments are very clear and convincing.

[Anonymous No.5346206]

Because he thinks he can stroll into a 2000+ year old debate having evidently studied fuck all of it and posit an unassailable thesis that's so shallow it insults the history of moral philosophy

[Anonymous No.5346217]

>>5346206
He has a PhD in neuroscience and a degree in philosophy. He knows very well what he's talking about and in order to solve the problem he doesn't need to address every failed attempt of history, just like a physicist can do science and explain things without ever talking about why astrology is bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5346219]

>>5346206
/thread.

[Anonymous No.5346223]

>>5346206
I bet you're also one of those fedora tipping idiots who say "hurr durr ur not allowed to criticize religion unless you read the bible".

[Anonymous No.5346225]

>>5346223
So being anti-Harris is fedora now? Fuck off

[Anonymous No.5346229]

>>5346223

[Anonymous No.5346233]

>>5346225
might as well be. just as retarded

[Anonymous No.5346243]

>>5346233
>>5346225
>>5346223
the "fedora" meme has lost literally all of it's meaning

[Anonymous No.5346248]

>>5346243
just like god

[Anonymous No.5346251]

>>5346243
The fedora meme targets pseudo-intellectualism in general. It was used correctly in this ITT.

[Anonymous No.5346263]

>>5346243
>literally

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5346270]

>>5346229
OMG HE'S GOT A HAT.

Ah man! He won again.
Somebody gotta get all those hat pictures off the internet OR WE'LL NEVER WIN

Made me respond: 1/10

>>5346243
It retains its original meaning, it just never amounted to anything in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5346275]

>>5346248
*tips fedora*

[Anonymous No.5346276]

>>5346243
>literally

[Anonymous No.5346280]

>guilt is instinctual

[Anonymous No.5346283]

>>5346243
It's become more pathos than logos

[Anonymous No.5346293]

>>5346217
>He has a PhD in neuroscience and a degree in philosophy.

Which means exactly dick.

[Anonymous No.5346298]

Ehhhh we're approaching faith levels in terms of the origin of the universe. Nobody knows how the universe started, all our investigations haven't really been conclusive, and of course nobody knows what, if anything, came before it. I'd say that's the sort of thing that's been ceded to the Church.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5346307]

>>5346251
-> >>5346223
Being an atheist doesn't take a great deal of "intellectualism" just some common sense.
>It was used correctly in this ITT.
>Tips yarmulke

[Anonymous No.5346309]

>>5346206
>2000+ year old debate
>debate
>over 2000 years
mkay.
You don't need to backtrack 2000 years of debating something ridiculous anyways. Why are Christians Christians, and not Muslim? Did they check the 1500 years of debate on that to make a sound judgement? What about the Jews? Hindus? Mormons?

This whole ''you can't belittle my belief if you don't know everything about it'' is stupid.

[Anonymous No.5346313]

>>5346307
Ever gonna try and defend Harris?

[Anonymous No.5346315]

>>5346276
>>5346263
that word was literally used correctly in that instance

[Anonymous No.5346322]

>>5346315
>literally

[Anonymous No.5346324]

>>5346309
>having evidently studied fuck all of it

[Anonymous No.5346326]

>>5346309
>You don't need to backtrack 2000 years of debating something ridiculous anyways.

[Anonymous No.5346329]

>>5346315
>literally

[Anonymous No.5346342]

>>5346326
>the age of a debate is more important than the arguments
>you need to study pseudoscience before studying science
>I don't take physicists seriously because they never address astrology in their papers

I don't even know anymore which hat to tip to your post.

[Anonymous No.5346358]

>>5346313
>butterfly
>ever contributing anything meaningful to a thread

[Anonymous No.5346372]

>>5346309
the post >>5346206 was talking about moral philosophy, not religion. And considering there's currently a revival of things like virtue ethics which is actually over 2000 years old then going back that far is definitely well advised

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5346375]

>>5346313
I barely know anything about him.

>>5346358
The topic I came in on were the at least equally worthless fedorists. Which you are one of, yes?

[Anonymous No.5346385]

>>5346372
Nobody needs to study the idiotic opinions of philosophers on morality when we can approache the problem scientifically and objectively instead.

[Anonymous No.5346391]

>>5346372
⇒And considering there's currently a revival of things like virtue ethics

Where? In your dreams? In your hallucinations? Go outside once in a while, dude.

[Anonymous No.5346401]

>>5346385
>Nobody needs to study the idiotic opinions of philosophers on morality when we can approache the problem scientifically and objectively instead.
Hitler, plz go

[Anonymous No.5346406]

>>5346391
oh yeah shit I forgot contemporary moral philosophy mainly takes place outside. D'oh!

[Anonymous No.5346413]

>>5346406
There is no "contemporary moral philosophy". Ethics literally means nothing more than having subjective emotional opinions. Everyone, irregardless of their educational background, is equally entitled to express "muh feelings". Philosophy contributes nothing to it.

[Anonymous No.5346419]

>>5346413
*tips fedora

also

>irregardless

[Anonymous No.5346422]

>>5346293

how does it mean nothign? the criticism was that sam harris is somehow unqualified to talk about religion/philosophy, how does it mean nothing that he was legitimately trained and educated in relevant topics ??

[Anonymous No.5346424]

>>5346413
You are doing philosophy right now

[Anonymous No.5346441]

Neuroscience is useless in the study of ethics, because learning how the brain works doesn't answer the question of how we should behave and why. That's like thinking you know how to shoot because you know how a gun is constructed.

Incidentally, Harris' ethics, near as I can understand, are basically just utilitarianism. So I congratulate him for independently arriving at the same conclusions John Stuart Mill did 155 years ago.

[Anonymous No.5346452]

>>5346422
He can talk about anything he wants for all I care but his ethical position is basically a not a very interesting form of Utilitarianism. If he studied more of the field it might be more interesting

[Anonymous No.5346459]

What are his political views exactly?

[Anonymous No.5346470]

>>5346459
"fuck the arabs"

[Anonymous No.5346475]

>>5346470
That sounds pretty reasonable.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.5346488]

>>5346459
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en

This lays out his primary theories very well. The host exposes the major problems with them in about two questions.

tl;dr
Took tons of ecstacy in the woods and decided it was possible to scientifically prove a priori morality.

[Anonymous No.5346503]

Harris' agenda seems more political than ethical. It seems like he's basically just trying to say "moral relativism is bullshit" and the rest is just about getting people emotional worked up and to actually care about the atrocities in the world. But he has no where near the depth of someone like, say, Bernard Williams who is actually interested in ethics in itself

[Anonymous No.5346523]

>>5346441
But he's saying EVERYONE is a utilitarian. We're all hardwired for that, this is important

[Anonymous No.5346535]

>>5346523
But we're not. Most people would not kill their wife to save two strangers. A Utilitarian would

[Anonymous No.5346541]

>>5346523
That doesn't necessarily mean it's how we SHOULD behave. A large number of people also seem to be hardwired to take amazing stories as true purely on faith, but surely Harris doesn't advocate that.

And shit, at its most basic formulation, utilitarianism is even older than Mill. I'm pretty sure Socrates more or less states the 'greatest happiness' principle to Glaucon and Adiemantus when he's laying out the city-in-speech in Book 3 of the Republic. So not only is the idea not brand new, it's ancient.

[Anonymous No.5346546]

>>5346535
Then they are deliberately and perversely going against their natural morality.

[Anonymous No.5346550]

>>5346541
But only now has it been shown to be the only objective and scientifically validated morality.

[Anonymous No.5346555]

>>5346546
Elaborate, because what you said just seems incredibly dumb

[Anonymous No.5346571]

>>5346555
We are hardwired with a utilitarian morality. You have to will evil to overcome it, in the same way you have to will yourself to hold your hand on a hot burner.

[Anonymous No.5346576]

>>5346186
Read the first chapter of his upcoming book:
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

When Nietzsche talked about the Last Man, he was describing Harris.

[Anonymous No.5346586]

>>5346571
and what's the evidence for this?
anyway that's obviously not true because of the example I just gave. You would obviously save your own child over some random child you've never met. If we were hardwired with a utilitarian morality then it would be a coin toss

[Anonymous No.5346598]

>>5346586
Sam Harris examines tests which show people value happiness significantly. Happiness is literally all that matters.

It wouldn't be a coin toss, because it's a matter of which child will make the world happier Most parents irrationally assume their child is more capable than others, but it's the job of reason to dissuade that notion.

[Anonymous No.5346611]

>>5346598
That's such a non-statement. It's like saying people think goodness is good. How do you even define happiness?

>which child will make the world happier
I don't know what that means either. Are you saying that if it was (somehow) proven that the stranger child would make the world 0.1 happiness-units happier than your own child you would give up your own without hesitation? That's literally psychopathic

[Anonymous No.5346616]

>>5346413
Great, I'll let doctors know that they can do whatever they want to patients, since ethical standards are clearly just opinions.

[Anonymous No.5346625]

>>5346217
>He has a PhD in neuroscience and a degree in philosophy

Which doesn't prevent him from being an illiterate goon. It only encourages him, really, since he's got a giant ego to go along with his anti-Muslim prejudice and complete ignorance of the socioeconomic origins of terrorism, as well as the history of philosophy and the world.

>>5346342
Malik put it best:
>Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as "adaptation", "speciation", "homology", "phylogenetics" or "kin selection" would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe"

One should also add, that Harris sidestepped needing to consider the history of philosophy by taking a bunch of ecstasy and realizing how much he, like, just was so, like, in tune with, like, omigod, man, like, the universe and just, so, like, REAL man and he just, like, loves everybody, omgiod. Would you honestly take a "scientist" like that seriously?
Would you trust him to design a space shuttle if he said "Law of Thermodywatmics? Psh. That's boring. I've just dropped a shit load of acid and I am ready to CREATE!"

[Anonymous No.5346629]

>>5346186

[Anonymous No.5346633]

>>5346611
Happiness is scientifically defined by the stimulation of the pleasure centers. Unhappiness is defined as stimulation of the pain centers. Although with masochists (and masochism is really a sort of mental illness), sometimes pain stimulation stimulates the pleasure centers, but the pleasure will always be far greater than the pain. Comfort is vital.

>Are you saying that if it was (somehow) proven that the stranger child would make the world 0.1 happiness-units happier than your own child you would give up your own without hesitation?
Yes, but that is a very hypothetical question. The happiness discrepancy is normally much greater.

[Anonymous No.5346641]

>>5346633
Happiness =/= pleasure
Unhappiness =/= pain

>Yes, but that is a very hypothetical question. The happiness discrepancy is normally much greater
That's not normal bro. Also I still bet that you would save your own child. However I am assuming that you aren't a psychopath

[Anonymous No.5346642]

>>5346633
>Happiness is scientifically defined by the stimulation of the pleasure centers.

>forgetting the natural conditions by which the stimulation is undertaken

[Anonymous No.5346648]

>>5346641
>Happiness =/= pleasure
>Unhappiness =/= pain
Yes, they do. Happiness is objective and can be discerned neurologically.

>That's not normal bro. Also I still bet that you would save your own child. However I am assuming that you aren't a psychopath
I'm not interested in what's normally morally right, I'm interested in scientifically morally right. Religion has distorted our objectivity.

[Anonymous No.5346656]

>>5346648
>scientifically morally right.

This doesnt exist. You need a mediate argument (philosophy) to connect a scientific fact with a moral conclusion.

[Anonymous No.5346662]

>>5346656
Sam Harris has proven through neurology and psychology that moral right is scientific and objective, and all our laws and actions should be structured around that. It's merely a question of how much we deviate from that, mostly due to religion and mistrust of science.

[Anonymous No.5346663]

>>5346648
>scientifically morally

Morality is a social construct, anon. Get with the times. There is nothing wrong with rape, murder, theft, adultry, etc. unless you're socially conditioned to belief so.

[Anonymous No.5346665]

>>5346648
I'd like you to show me the studies that say happiness can be discerned neurologically and that this encapsulates all correct uses of the word happiness

>I'm interested in scientifically morally right
That's an argument from authority

[Anonymous No.5346667]

>>5346662


>and all our laws and actions should be structured

>SHOULD
>science

[Anonymous No.5346669]

>>5346662
The fact that you pose this as a science vs religion thing shows how misguided and ignorant of this field Harris is and how much you've bought into it

[Anonymous No.5346672]

>>5346663
Wrong.

>>5346665
Take a look at brain scans and stimulation of the pleasure center. Stimulation of pleasure centers objectively makes people happy.

>>5346667
Scientific method is a "should", don't be fucking retarded.

>inb4 u cannot know nuffin

[Anonymous No.5346673]

>>5346662
>Sam Harris has proven through neurology and psychology that moral right is scientific and objective
>I'm interested in scientifically morally right
there's a circularity here

[Anonymous No.5346676]

>>5346662
could you expand on this? how does neurology and psychology map out a universal objective morality? I can see how this is possible to theorize the 'objective good', but the variables seem far too numerous to achieve this.

[Anonymous No.5346678]

>>5346598
⇒people value happiness significantly
Whoa dude, you're blowing my mind.

>>5346616
Doctors are motivated by money, not by morality. That's why only the civilized capitalist countries have a good health care system.

[Anonymous No.5346680]

>>5346669
Most philosophical traditions which disagree with him are ultimately offshoots of religion. Spinoff series, if you will.

[Anonymous No.5346687]

>>5346672
>Scientific method is a "should"

>1776+238

[Anonymous No.5346689]

>>5346672
No, it objectively makes people feel pleasure

I mean, if what you're saying is true, then it would be morally right to stimulate pleasure in every living being right now until they die and go extinct and let the planet go baron

[Anonymous No.5346693]

>>5346676
Happiness is quantifiable. The more advanced we become scientifically, the better we can bring our laws and behavior into harmony with the greatest happiness.

[Anonymous No.5346696]

>>5346680
I'm not being cheeky but seriously you should read some Bernard Williams

[Anonymous No.5346697]

>>5346689
Ultimately it is our task to "farm" happiness, so no. Genetic engineering and policy over a prolonged period can help with this.

[Anonymous No.5346698]

>>5346662
>all our laws and actions should be structured around that

How do we apply this in everyday life?

[Anonymous No.5346703]

>>5346693
>Happiness is quantifiable

>Witty_laughing.jpg

[Anonymous No.5346704]

>>5346697
Yeah this is getting pretty creepy

[Anonymous No.5346708]

>>5346698
Currently we can only do so through estimation via theory of mind. But the more advanced we are scientifically, the more we can teach how to make proper happiness calculations in the classroom based on average neurological pleasure associated with this and that action.

[Anonymous No.5346711]

>>5346703
>Witty_laughing.jpg
if only that existed ;_;

[Anonymous No.5346712]

>>5346697
>Genetic engineering

>"I want happiness screwed into my genes"

[Anonymous No.5346715]

>>5346680
Including eliminative materialism?

[Anonymous No.5346718]

>>5346715
Eliminative materialism is as anti-scientific as creationism.

[Anonymous No.5346719]

>>5346712
It's not that so much. It is that we evolved to function in a radically different environment than the one we do. Traits such as cruelty and violence served a much greater utilitarian purpose in the past than they do now. If the gene that causes belief in the natural natural can be isolated, it also be invaluable to modify that, as that itself might well be associated with more primitive violent inclinations.

[Anonymous No.5346722]

>wanting "happiness shots"
>not valuring pain, sadness, an the whole spectrum of human emotions and esthetics

[Anonymous No.5346725]

>>5346722
We justify those emotions after the fact. Similar to how people who have to work say work is good.

[Anonymous No.5346729]

>>5346186

oy vey

[Anonymous No.5346731]

>>5346725
>We justify those emotions
>justify

Just stop.

[Anonymous No.5346732]

>>5346718
wut

[Anonymous No.5346737]

>>5346722
Pain and sadness are objectively bad, if you value them then you have a neurological disorder.

[Anonymous No.5346743]

>>5346731
As Nietzsche said, men do not hate suffering, they hate suffering without reason. We make up some reason to sanctify our suffering.

[Anonymous No.5346744]

>>5346206
>Because he thinks he can stroll into a 2000+ year old debate having evidently studied fuck all of it and posit an unassailable thesis that's so shallow it insults the history of moral philosophy
>stroll

One too many 's's, lel.

[Anonymous No.5346746]

>>5346732
The purpose of science is to explain things, not to deny them.

[Anonymous No.5346747]

>>5346737
>objectively
>emotions have no evolutionary purpose

[Anonymous No.5346751]

>>5346737
Sam Harris is objectively bad, if you value him then you have a neurological disorder.

[Anonymous No.5346752]

>>5346747
But the environment we evolved to survive in is nothing like the environment we're in now.

[Anonymous No.5346757]

>>5346751
gr8 m8

[Anonymous No.5346758]

>>5346751

Sam Harris is objectively Jewish. If you don't shill for atheism and hedonism you have a neurological disorder.

[Anonymous No.5346759]

>>5346747
They used to, until we developed logical reasoning and science, which are much more effective methods of learning.

[Anonymous No.5346765]

>>5346752

>we should use evolutionary guidlines to instruct our morality
>but only when I deem it fit

[Anonymous No.5346768]

>>5346737
The thought that people take Sam Harris seriously causes me pain and sadness. Please stop.

[Anonymous No.5346771]

>>5346759
>learning
>thinking this is the purpose or value of emotions

[Anonymous No.5346773]

>>5346768
What's your problem?

[Anonymous No.5346775]

>>5346771
It is the evolutionary purpose, yes.

[Anonymous No.5346777]

>>5346775
>we get sad when we lose our phones to learn

[Anonymous No.5346781]

>>5346773

It's kind of like when I think about the fact that 50 Shades of Grey is a bestseller and nobody reads Italo Calvino because 'dat shit boring nigga, big words hurt my brain, too much work'.

[Anonymous No.5346795]

>>5346781
Is this the reason why you don't read Harris? Because "big words" hurt your brain?

[Anonymous No.5346799]

>>5346765
We should. We need to apply genetic engineering to suit ourselves to our environment. That is simply speeding up evolution.

[Anonymous No.5346806]

>>5346799

>genetic engineer ourselves to enjoy being buttfuckef by Capitalism

[Anonymous No.5346813]

>>5346806
Capitalism as opposed to what we've had previously, or as opposed to something theoretical?

[Anonymous No.5346818]

>>5346737
>everyone who has ever watched a horror movie
>everyone who has ever watched a tragedy
>everyone who has ever felt love for another human being
>everyone who has ever mourned a dead person
>everyone who has ever, to put a simple point on it, not been a completely autistic fuckwit for every second of their entire lives
>they all have a neurological disorder

See, this is the sort of thing where actually being familiar with the history of philosophy would help you and Harris out. You might have encountered these sort of questions being bandied about since the Greeks, why do people want things that are hard to get? Why do they enjoy sad stories? Why do they pursue difficult paths? Why do some men love war?

Shit is not simple black & white like you're trying to pretend it is.

[Anonymous No.5346819]

>>5346746
Only if they're empirical testable. How can you empirical test the existence of the existence of "beliefs"

[Anonymous No.5346820]

>>5346813

>it must be in contrast to something else

[Anonymous No.5346822]

>>5346795
you're an idiot

[Anonymous No.5346830]

>>5346818
Horror movies are based on the pleasure of excitement from adrenaline. Fear can release adrenaline, but so can other things.

As Nietzsche points out, the joy of tragedy was originally a sadistic one, but later became a masochistic one.

There's nothing negative about feeling love, there's only a negative feeling about not being love, and no one enjoys that.

Mourning the dead is objectively immoral. You might not be able to help it, but we can work on a solution of excising irrational mourning from our genetics and society.

[Anonymous No.5346838]

>>5346820
When someone says "buttfucked", it's in contrast to not being buttfucked.

[Anonymous No.5346842]

>>5346830
Nietzsche would have hated Harris

>Mourning the dead is objectively immoral
seriously, fuck off

[Anonymous No.5346844]

>>5346830
>not being loved

[Anonymous No.5346847]

>>5346842
Nietzsche was on the right path with his critique of religion and God, but he wasn't 100% right. He was skeptical of science, for instance.

[Anonymous No.5346859]

>>5346830
>Mourning the dead is objectively immoral

>"Hey, you remember when I was talking about how cool the scientific method is? Well, fuck that! I just want to be pope."

[Anonymous No.5346861]

>>5346847
haha it's like you are parodying yourself at this stage, thinking science and religion is all there is

[Anonymous No.5346863]

>>5346859
Science backs me up.

[Anonymous No.5346871]

>>5346861
They are. Science is the exploration of what is fact, religion is making stuff up and pretend it's fact. When you make stuff up but don't pretend it's fact, that's called art.

[Anonymous No.5346876]

>>5346863
>"I have the blessing of God"

[Anonymous No.5346878]

>>5346863
You are a religious fundamentalist

[Anonymous No.5346881]

>>5346878
I'm a factual fundamentalist. Only someone who had religious inclinations, or pseudo-religious inclinations (certain forms of philosophy), would say rigid adherence to fact is being "religious".

[Anonymous No.5346886]

>>5346881
>rigid adherence to fact
>copy pasting theological arguments

[Anonymous No.5346889]

>>5346881
If you love "facts" so much you should read Witty's Tractatus (though I must warn you it's quite the step up from Harris) and then read PI to realise why how the fuck it's so wrong

[Anonymous No.5346891]

>>5346886
>complaining that science is a type of religion
Christfag, much?

[Anonymous No.5346899]

>>5346871
>science = everything that's true
>religion = everything that's not true
>art = everything that's not true that we know about

Does it make you feel better believing that your lack of virginity is art?

[Anonymous No.5346900]

>>5346891
>science
>not a religion

[Anonymous No.5346919]

>>5346830
>Nietzsche
Pretty sure we're not supposed to read him because he's history and therefore boring.

>the joy of tragedy was originally a sadistic one
Also pretty sure sadism is a perversion of our hardwired utilitarian instincts.

>a masochistic one
Where are those hardwired utilitarian instincts there when you objectively need them, amirite?

>Mourning the dead is objectively immoral.
But ... but ... it's naturally part of muh brain ... ;_;

>>5346847
Nietzsche wouldn't have pissed on you if your shoes were on fire. Sam Harris (and you) are literally Nietzsche's Last Man. The weak creatures who have pride themselves at having retreated from all pain, and wallowing in your own nihilistic mediocrity, celebrate that you have abandoned all places and sources of pain.

>Whether it be hedonism, pessimism, utilitarianism, or eudaemonism, all those modes of thinking which measure the worth of things according to pleasure and pain, that is, according to accompanying circumstances and secondary considerations, are plausible modes of thought and naivetes, which every one conscious of creative powers and an artist's conscience will look down upon with scorn ... You want, if possible—and there is not a more foolish "if possible"—TO DO AWAY WITH SUFFERING; and we?—it really seems that WE would rather have it increased and made worse than it has ever been! Well-being, as you understand it—is certainly not a goal; it seems to us an END; a condition which at once renders man ludicrous and contemptible—and makes his destruction DESIRABLE! The discipline of suffering, of GREAT suffering—know ye not that it is only THIS discipline that has produced all the elevations of humanity hitherto? The tension of soul in misfortune which communicates to it its energy, its shuddering in view of rack and ruin, its inventiveness and bravery in undergoing, enduring, interpreting, and exploiting misfortune, and whatever depth, mystery, disguise, spirit, artifice, or greatness has been bestowed upon the soul—has it not been bestowed through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering?
Beyond Good & Evil, P225

[Anonymous No.5346925]

>>5346919
>Also pretty sure sadism is a perversion of our hardwired utilitarian instincts.
No, it was a way for us to hurt the lessor for the sake of the greater.

>Where are those hardwired utilitarian instincts there when you objectively need them, amirite?
Religion is mostly at fault there.

>Nietzsche wouldn't have pissed on you if your shoes were on fire. Sam Harris (and you) are literally Nietzsche's Last Man.
Nietzsche Last Man is the objectively best state for humanity, Nietzsche was simply too obsessed with how "glorious" things like war are.

[Anonymous No.5346926]

>>5346871
Please explain to me how the pictured artwork is not true.

Joseph Kosuth - One and Three Chairs

[Anonymous No.5346929]

>>5346737

The last refuge of a beaten man (or first for someone who cannot defend their position) is basically a 'scientific' ad hominem - claim they have a mental disorder!

That's right! Pathologise the opposition! And if any were to agree with them then surely they too must be demented or mentally deficient!

[Anonymous No.5346944]

A thing that bugs me:

>Harris runs an essay contest
>small cash prize for the winner
>bigger cash prize if the winner's essay convinces Harris that his thesis was incorrect

Wouldn't it have been more courageous to reverse the prizes so that he wouldn't have this large monetary incentive to stick to his guns?

[Anonymous No.5346955]

>>5346919
It's pretty cool that Nietzsche stuck to his philosophy despite his terrible health.

[Anonymous No.5346958]

>>5346926
Maybe if the corners of that niche in the wall weren't filthy the perspective would work.

[Anonymous No.5346967]

>>5346958
What do you even mean?

It's a chair, a picture of said chair and a dictionary's meaning of chair.

[Anonymous No.5347038]

>>5346926
It is the portrayal of a fictional feeling. We enjoy it based on finding similarities between it and our feelings, similar to how we enjoy fiction.

[Anonymous No.5347305]

>>5346830
>Horror movies are based on the pleasure of excitement from adrenaline
So pain isn't objectively bad after all? It can't be all bad, in that it creates a "pleasure of excitement", right? So masochists don't have neurological disorders after all?

Also, why do you get to decide that happiness is the ultimate good? Once you make a baseless claim like that, it's extremely easy to build a system of morals, but that entire golden tower is standing on a foundation of shit. I could make an equally impressive list of moral laws by arbitrarily deciding that, say, fulfilling one's duty is the ultimate good.

PS. I find it odd that you, as an atheist, believe there is such a thing as a "neurological disorder" in the sense you say here (feel free to rip that out of context and use it to rebut this entire post). Surely, realising that we are all creatures of evolution, you don't have the utter arrogance to believe you get to decide what preferences are "correct" and which are "disorders"? What if the majority of the world were masochists? Would that make it less wrong, more wrong?

[Anonymous No.5347321]

>>5347305
Pain is only a means to an end in this case. Pain as an end is objectively bad.

>Also, why do you get to decide that happiness is the ultimate good?
It's scientifically proven.

>Surely, realising that we are all creatures of evolution, you don't have the utter arrogance to believe you get to decide what preferences are "correct" and which are "disorders"?
Yes, yes, yes, of course, is someone is born disfigured, who is to say that's disfigured.

>What if the majority of the world were masochists?
What if the majority of the world had cancer?

[Anonymous No.5347582]

>>5346576
Actually Sam Harris is the Uebermensch.

[Anonymous No.5347629]

>>5347582
And Tim and Eric are the last men.

[Anonymous No.5347907]

>>5346307
>le epig shifty merchant meme

[Anonymous No.5347913]

>>5347629
/mu/ here, Tim and Eric are television's answer to vaporwave.

[Anonymous No.5347988]

>>5346625
I wouldn't trust a philosopher who had never rolled on E

[Anonymous No.5348376]

Wait, are we supposed to hate people who dogmatically believe in a religion, hate atheists who oppose this, and hate the radical skeptic "can't know nuffin" fence sitters?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5348420]

>>5348376
>Wait, are we supposed to hate people who dogmatically believe in a religion, hate atheists who oppose this, and hate the radical skeptic "can't know nuffin" fence sitters?

Anon, you have already climbed to the top of the ivory tower of /lit/. Defecate into your hand and fling it down like the rest of us, it matters very little who it hits.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5348494]

>>5348420

[Anonymous No.5348652]

>>5348376
Yes, you got it.

[Anonymous No.5348656]

>>5348494
I would fuck that girl with my 9 inch meat rod

[Anonymous No.5348700]

>>5348656
she looks kinda underage to me bro

[Anonymous No.5348716]

>>5348656
she looks about 12

[Anonymous No.5348720]

>>5346298
Church
>therb waz nuthin and then god made world 7 days days and that's why sunday i go hunt praise jezus

[Anonymous No.5349552]

>>5347321
>>Also, why do you get to decide that happiness is the ultimate good?
>It's scientifically proven.
How so?

[Anonymous No.5349694]

>>5348656
*4 inch pencil

[Anonymous No.5349717]

>>5346206
>so shallow it insults the history of moral philosophy

Perhaps you're just shallow enough to be offended by a guy like Harris.

[Anonymous No.5350637]

>>5348720
Is that really any worse than what science has been able to come up with?

Especially now that it's looking like the Big Bang Theory doesn't hold up, and we have nothing to replace it with?

[Anonymous No.5350657]

>>5350637
>now that it's looking like the Big Bang Theory doesn't hold up
lol

[Anonymous No.5350678]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtH3Q54T-M8

Wathc him make a fool of himself in front of people who actually know what they're talking about

[Anonymous No.5350692]

⇒Sam Harris getting #rekt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

[Anonymous No.5350705]

> I know how to solve all moral question
> I have the answer for the quesion of free will
> physicalism reduccionism for all but I'm spiritual too

[Anonymous No.5350712]

>>5350705
The idea of "unfree will" doesn't even make any sense, it's that simple.

[Anonymous No.5350751]

because he doesn't know what's he talking about, here's a book about it:

https://archive.org/details/AgainstTheIrreligiousRight

The only "new atheist" worth listening to is Dennet, all the others are jokes.

[Anonymous No.5350758]

>>5346385
>scientific objective morality
read a book nigga

[Anonymous No.5350770]

>>5350751
>The only "new atheist" worth listening to is Dennet, all the others are jokes.
this so motherfucking much.

[Anonymous No.5350773]

>>5346186
I think it's important to break down crusty institutions, including its childish concept of a sky god who is gonna help you b/c you are in religion x, and not in religion y. But stating there is no god, is foolish. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water. You can say fuck religion all yo uwant, and for the most part, I am with you. However, I know god exists, I don't need fucking faith or some other "proof" to know it. Sorry fellas

[Anonymous No.5350791]

>>5346633
i still wouldn't choose to get connected into a computer and have my "pleasure centers" activated electronically for the rest of my life

does that mean that i have no morals?

[Anonymous No.5350797]

>>5346648
>I'm not interested in what's normally morally right, I'm interested in scientifically morally right. Religion has distorted our objectivity.
that makes no sense at all, science can tell you if your predictions are accurate or not. Science can not tell what the fuck you decide to do or why

[Anonymous No.5350799]

>>5346385

[Anonymous No.5350803]

>>5350773
You're probably gonna get some shit for this, but I agree with you. Far too often I see this strange notion that you must either be an athiest or belong to one of the major religions, when in reality you're probably better off pursuing a path somewhere in the middle.

[Anonymous No.5350811]

>>5350797
>Science can not tell what the fuck you decide to do or why
How do you say "neuroscience" and "evolutionary psychology" in Sky Daddy speak?

[Anonymous No.5350819]

>>5350791
No, of course not. Like I said, humans are utilitarian. You might increase your own happiness, but you would damage or at least become unable to improve the happiness of others.

[Anonymous No.5350822]

>>5346678
>Doctors are motivated by money, not by morality. That's why only the civilized capitalist countries have a good health care system.
more kids die in the usa than in cuba

[Anonymous No.5350846]

>>5350811
>evolutionary psychology

lel.

[Anonymous No.5350849]

>>5350846
>you can't know nuffin

[Anonymous No.5350859]

>>5350849
Even real scientists know psychology doesn't real.

[Anonymous No.5350868]

>>5350859
Evolutionary psychology is probably the only respectable sort.

[Anonymous No.5350871]

>>5350819
I'm not utilitarian this proves your science is wrong, i was scientifically tested

[Anonymous No.5350873]

>>5350811
Both of those can only tell us what we're 'hard-wired' to do, to quote someone further up the thread.

But they can't say whether the things we're hard-wired to do are the things we OUGHT to be doing. Maybe the best things to do are the things we DON'T do instinctively. Maybe, for the sake of the greater good, we should defy our evolutionary behavior. That's where evolutionary psychology is at a loss. It can't say "ought."

[Anonymous No.5350882]

>>5350873
>you're hardwired to breathe
>but OUGHT you to breathe?
>you're hardwired to pull your hand off a hot burner
>but OUGHT you to pull your hand off a hot burner?

CANNOT
KNOW
NUFFIN

[Anonymous No.5350888]

>>5350868
if by respectable you mean newest and by sort you mean joke

[Anonymous No.5350889]

>>5350882
>retarded

[Anonymous No.5350980]

>>5350888
By this standard, psychoanalysis is the most respectable because of how old it is.

Evolutionary psychology is the only kind which takes into account the natural sciences to draw conclusions.

[Tallis !!y+12CeFwYOo No.5350987]

>>5346186
About contemporary atheists. De mortuis nihil nisi bonum.

[Anonymous No.5351137]

I dislike how he assumes that faith is a product of fear and ignorance, but then says shit like this:

>"we live in a country in which a person cannot get elected president if he openly
doubts the existence of heaven and hell . . . . In our next presidential election, an
actor who reads his Bible would almost certainly defeat a rocket scientist who does
not. Could there be any clearer indication that we are allowing unreason and otherworldliness to govern our affairs?"

He also has a bad habit of making sweeping generalizations, and an even worse habit of trying to build entire arguments off of assumptions. I'm not even remotely religious, but he's introduced nothing original to the debate over religion, and at the end of the day his arguments are just blatant sensationalism wrapped in unadulterated opinion. Hell, almost any argument he makes is rooted in some form of fallacy. The only people who take him seriously are religious fanatics and pontifical atheists frothing at the mouth to claim superiority, both of which only serves to fuel his ego.

[Anonymous No.5351784]

>>5351137
the end of faith is full of "new stuff" brought to the debate, particularly regarding islam

[Anonymous No.5352516]

>>5350882
>you're hardwired to run away from fire
>but OUGHT you to run away from fire when someone is trapped in a burning building?
>you're hardwired to kill the males of other tribes and take their women
>but OUGHT you to kill the males of other tribes and take their women?

[Anonymous No.5352550]

>>5350980
>implying lacanian psychoanalysis doesn't take into account mathematics, biosemiotics, physical anthropology

[Anonymous No.5352847]

>>5352550
>Mathematics

Wasn't it Sokal that pointed out Lacan derives the square root of -1?

Dawkins talked wrote about it.

lel

[Anonymous No.5352870]

>>5351784
>the end of faith is full of "new stuff" brought to the debate, particularly regarding islam

New stuff, all of it retarded.

[Anonymous No.5352888]

Sam Harris makes my skin crawl. Douchebags like him are what makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.

[Anonymous No.5352897]

>>5346186
>192 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

[Anonymous No.5352908]

>>5351784
The End of Faith brings nothing new to the table. Even his hand-wringing about a nuclear holocaust (because religious people don't care about human life) isn't new; it is just a repackaging of old anti-USSR propaganda (Marxists don't care about human life).

[Anonymous No.5352925]

>>5352897
We've had a perfectly nice discussion in this thread. Admittedly, much of it is Harris adherents getting BTFO, but it's been civil enough.

[Anonymous No.5353191]

>>5352550
None of those are natural sciences, though biology and physical anthropology borrow from natural science, psychoanalysis utilizes them as middlemen, not natural science directly. Mathematics is not a natural science, it is simply a vital tool for all science (so is writing).

[Anonymous No.5353243]

>I'd say he is a good educator in philosophy

[Anonymous No.5354774]

He just wrote a new book "Waking Up"

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one

is there no end to this man's knowledge

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354790]

>>5346206
And then there's idiots like you that think "a debate" means the topic is undecided

Don't you have church to go to? Bible study?

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354795]

>>5346625
Actually anon, your illiteracy doesn't mean you can dismiss "neuroscience" offhand just because you read a book on the philosophy of science or consciousness

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354806]

>>5346225
Harris makes some good arguments, just like many people made some good arguments. Just because history tends to filter out much of the moronic shit people say doesn't mean someone like Aquinas didn't give stupid arguments

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354811]

>>5346243
It never had meaning

[Anonymous No.5354814]

>>5346217
He's only got a bachelor's in philosophy, for the record.

[Anonymous No.5354820]

>>5354814
That's more than what most 4channers have.

[Anonymous No.5354828]

>>5348720
You clearly don't understand deeply religious people.

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354832]

>>5346385
So here's the timeline of events

>hey guys I'm a Christian look how stupid I am
>fuck off
>fedora tippers!
>fuck off
so then you think and decide you should mockingly post this

You're so stupid I can't even articulate words to express how pathetic you are. No one cares about your religion here and your shitposting is the worst, least original tripe

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354849]

>>5346488
Which is, ironically, the entire study of metaethics, or that big modern analytic thing that fedoras ignore because they believe they can dismiss an entire school based on no argument or actual knowledge of the topic whatsoever

[le trole faec ಠ_ಠ !Avm1fqtITk No.5354871]

>>5346625
There's nothing all that special in the history of philosophy. You only need to history to arrive at the proper context for later philosophy, but there's no end in itself unless you actually want to revive Augustine or whatnot.

Not one really is going to revive Leibniz or Descartes, I'm sorry

[Anonymous No.5355048]

>>5354828
Yes, I am too intelligent to understand what it takes to believe in fairy tales.

[Anonymous No.5355068]

>Appealing to the authority of Harris' neuroscience degree

Aafia Siddiqui has a PhD in neuroscience from Brandeis, yet I don't see you morons joining al-Qaeda.

[Anonymous No.5355091]

>>5355068
I genuinely want to know how you make the ridiculous leap from listening to and acknowledging the arguments of Sam Harris to going out and "joining al-Qaeda".

What sort of bizarre wiring does one's brain have to have?

[Anonymous No.5355094]

>>5346452
You're retarded

>It's not interesting to me because I can't understand therefore he must be uninteresting and his point invalid.

Fuck you're really dumb. Nice b8 m8.

[Anonymous No.5356781]

>>5352847
>derives the square root of -1?
If by derive you mean erect from the flesh, then yes.
Pure rubish.
Also, Lacan's explanation of topological compactness is pure gibberish.
http://teachers.colonelby.com/bduncan/history/sokal.html

[Anonymous No.5357053]

>>5356781
Whoever wrote that article sounds like a huge fag. The sentence he's quoting as an example of postmodernism alledged inintelligibility is not only grammatically simple, it is rather clear to anyone who has heard about Gödel's work and about the continuum hypothesis (so that would be almost any highschool senior who is really into math), and there's nothing groundbreaking or really puzzling about it.

His account of postmodernism is also ridiculously simplistic.

I can't respect the intelligence of someone who writes like that, I'm sorry, anon.

[Anonymous No.5357159]

>>5346217
>>5346223
>people defending the new atheists
This is just stupid. If you want a good discussion of atheism and religion, take a look at Nietzsche, Kierkegaard,Flew, Russell, and Bentley-Hart. ( some background in Plato could be useful.) Conveniently enough, you can read these same philosophers for a primer on morality, another topic that completely eludes Harris.

Whether or not Harris has a million degrees in philosophy is irrelevant, as he is writing for a very casual audience, one which doesn't want to put in the time to actually read philosophy and theology (read: fedoratheists and easily swayed theist who have never put much thought into their beliefs.)

[Anonymous No.5357164]

>>5357159

>Rustle

Better than Harris on religion, but not by too much.

[Anonymous No.5357177]

>>5346329
>>5346322
>>5346315
>>5346276
>>5346263

Big kid tested.
O.E.D. approved.

[Anonymous No.5357187]

>>5357164
I was going to ask why, but then I remembered reading this essay in which he completely dismisses Plato with some Dawkins-esque misinterpretation. Right, scratch Russell.

[Anonymous No.5357198]

>>5357053
Go to the source below to see why you are wrong.
In particular, half the way down page 44, continuing on to page 45.

http://folk.uib.no/nmasr//infosider/dokumenter/sokal-bricmont-3.pdf

[Anonymous No.5357201]

>>5354849
Metaethics is the study of how to redefine ethics for no reason other than we are frightened of letting go of the meaningfulness term.

[Anonymous No.5357205]

>>5357201
>meaningfulness of the term

[Anonymous No.5357247]

>>5357198
Second half of page 44 to beginning of page 45 only comforts me in my opinion. The argument "the continuum hypothesis deals [partly I should add] with unnumerable cardinals and the set of all possible texts in written language is denumerable so there's no reason the continuum hypothesis should have anything to do with linguistics" is functionally retarded.

If nothing because this hypothesis is written in a human language (although it's a very formal one) that has its roots in various vernacular and scholarly languages (latin, french, german, english to name a few), and as such it isn't completely absurd to imagine that it could have something to do with linguistics. Actually you could phrase the continuum hypothesis in English, although you would need to use technical terms, but in that respect the continuum hypothesis isn't more radically separated from linguistics than a statement in an oncology paper is.

On top of that that argument doesn't address the point of the quote, which is about the relationship of the choice axiom and of the continuum hypothesis with other axioms of set theory. The only thing I would give the author is that Kristeva only mentions Gödel (at least in that quote) while the one who "perfected" the results on the continuum hypothesis is Cohen.

Finally, the author seems to have an understanding of what the continuum hypothesis is. This only makes his stance more jarring, as the explicative note he wrote on the continuum hypothesis is rather relevant to the point of the Kristeva's quote about four lines above it. It really makes the author looks like paraphrasis is already too much for him. I think you made a bad choice in pointing me towards that particular paragraph, anon.

[Anonymous No.5357362]

>>5357247
>Second half of page 44 to beginning of page 45 only comforts me in my opinion.

Then try reading the whole thing. Part of the problem is with what Kristeva attempts to do with the axiom of choice, i.e. show that poetic language is consistent by means of construction (axiom of choice doesn't construct jack-squat). She continues [second paragragh in quotes top of page 66] to completely butcher Goedel's incompleteness theorems, claiming that they, or at least one of them, shows "the impossibility of proving the inconsistency of a system by means formalized in the system."

Not, Even, Wrong.

[Anonymous No.5358241]

>>5352908
confirmed for awful reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.5358254]

>>5357159
>as he is writing for a very casual audience
>hipping intensifies
everything critique of anything on this board breaks down to this shit

[Anonymous No.5358256]

>>5358254
every*

[Anonymous No.5358260]

>>5350980
evolutionary psychology is untestable, you can test normal evolution as in you can predict the gradual changes and then afterwards find new fossils that agree with the theory.

you can't see how monkeys acted in the past. You can make a few inferences from morphology, etc, but that's about it. And it hardly overlaps at all with the kind of work done in traditional psychology.

[Anonymous No.5358262]

>>5351137
yep, basically followers of pop science and deprecated historical theories from the 19th century that were popularized with Carl Sagan's Cosmos, and that build on the narrative that Christian faith fought against reason represented by the old pagans.

Which is kind of funny in itself because modern science can be argued to have been grown pretty much exclusively from Christian structures

[Anonymous No.5358277]

>>5358262
>because modern science can be argued to have been grown pretty much exclusively from Christian structures
how would, for instance, the birth of the Royal Society come from an existing Christian structure?

[Anonymous No.5358292]

>>5358277
well it was based in Francis Bacon work which was pretty christian. But then again i guess you could argue that Francis Bacon work was christian to sugar-coat it.

[Anonymous No.5358322]

>>5358260
This. Most of what we call evolutionary psychology, while often fascinating, has nothing to do with reality.

[Anonymous No.5358325]

>>5358292
> But then again i guess you could argue that Francis Bacon work was christian to sugar-coat it.
No. Two big differences between the Christian outlook and the pagan one:

a) Christians believe the Universe runs in a linear time, with a beginning and an end; pagans believe time is circular with no end or beginning.

b) Christians believe that God's will is rational and understandable. because God and Man share the same fundamental nature. Pagans believe that reality is structured in hierarchical 'layers', and man's place in it is by far not at the top.

Science is impossible with a pagan outlook.

[Anonymous No.5358341]

>>5358325
i was speaking about Francis Bacon and the creation of the Royal Society not about the relation between Christianity an science.

I still don't see how your 2 points relate to science at all. About a) a lot of scientists believed in a static universe until around 100 years ago and that didn't stop them from doing any science. About b) I can understand the world being chaotic but i don't get how that relates with man not being at the top and science.

But yeah a lot of science history came from people working on the assumption that the world was created by a rational god and that you could understand that god by looking objectively at his work

[Anonymous No.5358386]

>>5354832

The fuck are you talking about? Are you replying to the wrong post?

[Anonymous No.5358470]

>>5346206
In those 2000 years theism hasn't produced any positive arguments for the existence of a deity other than "muh faith"

[Anonymous No.5358538]

>>5358341
No, you still don't understand.

Pagans don't believe in cause and effect, because in their mental model time is circular, not linear. It's hard to do science when you don't believe in cause and effect.

Pagans also don't believe that one can understand the world. In their view, man understanding the universe is no more possible than e.g. an ant understanding 4chan or a grain of sand understanding how beaches are formed.

It takes a cosmic presumptuousness and self-centeredness to assume that man somehow the capacity to explain and understand the workings of the universe.

That kind of presumption comes natural to the Christian worldview -- because Christianity supposes that man has a divine nature, and in a sense is 'above' the universe.

[Anonymous No.5358572]

>>5346186
>78 KB
>Sam Harris Anonymous 08/26/14(Tue)20:27:01 No.5346186 [Re
I remember reading the first chapter of one of his books where he was talking about the time he took MDMA and he "woke up" and realised he loved his friend. No shit.

[Anonymous No.5358613]

>>5346488
>there are objective moral thruths
>would it be good o believe in the evil eye?
>probably not
when you say there are object truths in morals but can't give a definitive answers, I think it's time to rethink your statements. no wonder/lit/ hates this guy. he's retarded.

[Anonymous No.5358781]

His whole viewpoint relies on the assumption that suffering is bad, and that the scenario where everything is suffering as much as it can all the is the worst - i.e. the most bad - scenario that can imagined. These are his own words (paraphrased).

But this is a tautology, meaning it says nothing about the world and, ironically, is unscientific. "Suffering", by the very nature of the word, means to experience something bad. So what he's really saying "to experience badness is bad". And since "badness" is a value judgement and not a fact (in other words, badness would not exist if there were no living things) then it can only exist when experienced anyway. So the whole foundation of his argument is "badness is bad".

Furthermore, he goes on from this tautology to say "we must avoid the bad", and this is basically his whole argument. If the word "bad" could have any single definition it would be: "that which all things avoid". It's the antonym of good, which is: "that which all things aim for". So it's, again, another tautology.

So yeah, rekt

[Anonymous No.5358785]

>>5358781
*all the time

[Anonymous No.5359058]

>>5346413

You should read Alasdair MacIntyre's critique of the "subjective morality" in After Virtue. It's the first chapter. Read the book in its entirety. But you probably won't because you're already enlightened by your own intelligence.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/p-macint/

[Anonymous No.5360241]

>>5358254
Did you just stop reading because 'le casual meme' triggered you? The point is that he's discussing a very complex topic in a stupid way for his ignorant audience.

[Anonymous No.5360312]

>>5359058
(not that guy) i finished reading the first chapter in the car the other day and i liked it a lot, his takedown of emotivism made a lotta sense. i liked it but does it get better? does he ever get around to prescribing some kind of aristotlean thing or is it all negative?

[:^) No.5360498]

It is natural to feel unhappy, it is unnatural to think that that we should only stimulate our pleasure centers and chase happiness in life. Happiness is a product of our actions not an end to itself. Think of all the discoveries selfless people have made in life for the sake of trying to inform their fellow man. Sam Harris's philosophy is incredibly futile because no matter how much you dissect and analyze what emotions are/ whether or not they are "rational" you cannot stop yourself from having them. All the genetic conditioning in the world will not change the fact that life is a series of ups and downs for every human in existence. You cannot eliminate suffering nor people's naturally ingrained response to suffering. It's simply impossible. Science is a great tool to explore our surroundings, but it's mastery over nature is purely an illusion.

[Anonymous No.5360514]

>>5360498
weed is natural, it grows from the earth

[Anonymous No.5360594]

>>5346697
anyone else getting a 1984 vibe off this anon?

[Anonymous No.5360619]

>>5346899
underrated post/10

[Anonymous No.5361373]

>mfw plebs and their vain happiness chases