/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.8809008]

Sam Harris is definitely one of the smartest intellectuals of our time.

[Anonymous No.8809015]

>>8809008
Until you realize there's Jordan Peterson.

[Anonymous No.8809027]

>>8809008
I liked Dodgeball when it came out, but I've grown out of it. Give it a few years and you'll see Harris for what he really is, a hack.

[Anonymous No.8809336]

>>8809015
He would own the crap out of Sam Harris in a debate.

[Anonymous No.8809340]

>>8809015
based Jordan is flawless desu

[Anonymous No.8809351]

>>8809340
He would strongly disagree in the most insightful and introspective ways possible, but that just makes him even more powerful.

[Anonymous No.8809355]

This is now a Jordan Peterson thread. Jordan Peterson has taken Sam Harris' place as the /lit/ meme intellectual.

[Anonymous No.8809388]

>>8809008
>"Intellectual"
>Atheist
Uhh... I don't think so OP

[Anonymous No.8809391]

>>8809336
Why would they debate? They both think gender pronouns are ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.8809396]

>>8809008
>I don't believe in God so I have to mention him every time I announce my intellectual creed

[Anonymous No.8809401]

>>8809008
OLO
LMAO!!

[Anonymous No.8809402]

>>8809391
They would debate about religion.

[Anonymous No.8809403]

>>8809008
In the same way my dog is technically one of the smartest intellectuals our time

[Anonymous No.8809423]

>>8809388
Realize that all religion is just confirmation bias. Sorry for ruining your fragile little faith. Sorrynotsorry.

[Anonymous No.8809433]

>>8809008
no hes not
also, his critics on Christianity doesn't apply to the eastern orthodox nor the catholic church

[Anonymous No.8809467]

>>8809423
Actually religion is the conceptual embodiment of primordial archetypes that structure our consciousness and determine the way we act. This stuff is in our genes, and we can't avoid it.

[Anonymous No.8809472]

>>8809433
I'm pretty sure that atheists critique all religion as being bad, but sam harris in particular talks about certain doctrines being worse than others, so yeah it would make sense if he was saying that some sects of christianity are worse than others, or if islam is worse than christianity, he openly says stuff like that, but he is also against all religion.

[Anonymous No.8809492]

>>8809467
This is a logical fallacy of appeal to nature, saying that because religion is "in our genes" (which btw what the fuck does that even mean? feynman test failed), and since there's so many people who aren't religious, it's obviously not "in our genes" to be religion. your whole argument doesn't even make sense human beings aren't "religious by nature". what is it about our nature and religion that coincide so deeply? I suppose it's just a one size fits all answer for everything with you people, it really makes me depressed.

[Anonymous No.8809495]

>>8809467
>and we can't avoid it.

We can, we just stop and say "Wait this is bullshit"

[Anonymous No.8809502]

>>8809467
>this is your brain on Jungianism

[Anonymous No.8809510]

>>8809391
>>8809402
Peterson criticizes Dawkins extensively in this interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Ys4tQPRis

Might actually be a pretty good debate.

[Anonymous No.8809517]

come on guys, please stop, we only have one board, let's take care of it

[Anonymous No.8809528]

>>8809008
Until you realize he lost an easy debate with David Wolpe and is a hack writer who just rewords philosophical arguments that are thousands of years old

Hold this L

[Anonymous No.8809683]

>>8809008
>moral utilitarianism at its worst
>morality is filled with peaks and valleys and we can use le science to find these peaks and valleys, wow

Only some of his ideas are respectable. Sam is part of a growing trend of intellectuals who are absolutely convinced we can objectively relate all experiences using le science. Why cant they see that all their facts are better defined as opinions?

Also my fucking god is he butthurt over trump, sam what makes you think hillary would have been better? Do you not see that the american political system has been a shitshow for over half a decade and this is just the latest round of the great shitstorm of our time?

[Anonymous No.8809708]

[Anonymous No.8809711]

>Utilitarians

[Anonymous No.8809714]

>>8809502
Hilarious. Deleuze a Jungian...

[Anonymous No.8809718]

>>8809708

>I don't want to give you any help but Kant raised some good objections maybe you should start there...

That's pretty funny

[Anonymous No.8809719]

[Anonymous No.8809744]

>>8809008
No, you only think that because he hates muslims

[Anonymous No.8809746]

>>8809744
this

[Anonymous No.8809751]

>>8809714
I don't think you understand reaction images friend

[Anonymous No.8809794]

>>8809492
not all people have the same genes, some are prediposed, some aren't. So, IF religion was genetic then theoretically some would be predisposed to it, and others wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.8809832]

>>8809355
Whenever Sam Harris has an idea it always boils down to "muh Materialism, muh Utilitarianism".
On the other extreme, Zizek's ideas start off strong and then turn into bullshit pretty quickly.
Jordan Peterson is a happy medium.

[Anonymous No.8809918]

>>8809008
America must make world safe for freedom and our greatest ally Isreal, which is of course the most rational country on earth. the regressive left and the alt right are exactly the same thing btw

[Anonymous No.8809940]

>>8809008
Beware he who calls himself a 'rationalist', 'skeptic', 'reality based' a 'classical liberal' or what else. Those people are invariably smug pedants and self-righteous neurotics. Harris and Hitchens shilled real hard for the Iraq invasion, how did that turn out?

[Anonymous No.8809952]

>>8809940
When did Harris do that? Did anyone even know who he was at the time?

[Anonymous No.8809986]

>>8809510
This is such a great interview, thanks for posting anon

[Anonymous No.8810006]

>>8809940
And Hitchens was right. Execution was poor, not the thought. Place would've become the current shithole regardless with the amount of uprisings against Hussein.

[Anonymous No.8810021]

>>8809015
>Until you realize there's Jordan Peterson.

Fucking this. The guy is a true intellectual.

[Anonymous No.8810025]

>>8809402
I don't think Harris would have so much of an issue with Peterson's take on religion (which I'm still not very secure on). Harris is soft on nondual mysticism, and he recently he seems to be more about criticizing Islam than religion in general. I would love to see Peterson on the Waking Up podcast but I would be surprised if it was anything like a debate. I could be wrong though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFb88lyCf84

[Anonymous No.8810045]

>>8810025
I sincerely doubt that Harris would have a lot of patience with JP's phenomenological approach to Being. People who are scientifically inclined tend to think that you can extract modes of being from pure materialistic facts.

[Anonymous No.8810048]

>>8810045
I might be wrong though, because I have heard Harris criticize the is-ought gap by essentially using an argument from intentionality, which is pretty phenomenological.

[Anonymous No.8810051]

>>8809510
"you can take a newtonian perspective or a darwinian perspective, but you can't do both at the same time"

>that
>fucking
>face
>when

[Anonymous No.8810055]

>>8810006
neo-Ba'athist arab nationalism>Islamism>>>>>muh librul values Zio-fellating Neoconservativism

[Anonymous No.8810056]

>>8810051
What's funny is that Newton was extremely religious, while Darwin was an atheist.

[Anonymous No.8810060]

>>8810051
He's right though, if you actually listen to why.

[Anonymous No.8810067]

>>8810056
no doubt!

but holy moses do i need to think about this shit for a moment. positivism was fun while it lasted. how come the frothing sciencecucks who shit up the philosophy threads never fucking pointed this out? that newton and darwin - the hardest of hard fucking sciences - may not have been on the same page?

i'm not making any sense but w/e. i fucking love peterson so much

[Anonymous No.8810074]

>>8810060
i'm not disagreeing in the slightest. my tfw was just getting blown away by how much i agreed with that statement, not disagreeing in the slightest. not in the slightest

[Anonymous No.8810097]

>>8810067
>that newton and darwin - the hardest of hard fucking sciences
Newton and Darwin are considered luminaries but calling them hard scientists is a bit of a stretch.

[Anonymous No.8810098]

>>8810055
The race is far too tribal overall (and the country lines were too haphazardly drawn out) to ever suggest (imo) that we wouldn't still be in the exact same situation had we not attempted what we did.

[Anonymous No.8810142]

>>8810097
yeah...

...

...okay. fair enough anon

[Anonymous No.8810151]

>>8810098
It was a colossal fuck up of massive proportions.
Saddam was a secularist, no al Qaeda ties, meanwhile America is still bros with the Saudis who bankrolled the wahabbis in the first place and Israel, which has been destabilising the whole region for the past 60 years. And this are the same people going after Assad. It's not even about 'being soft on muslims/terrorism'. it's about the military industrial complex and literal shills for israel and saudi exploiting dumb burgers for their own agenda and screwing everyone else in the process.

[Anonymous No.8810196]

>>8810151
>and Israel, which has been destabilising the whole region for the past 60 years.

lol

[Anonymous No.8810198]

>>8809008
saged hidden reported

[Anonymous No.8810201]

>>8809008
Well, just by looking at his face you can say hes not....

[Anonymous No.8810246]

>>8809423
Realize that all beliefs are subject to motivated reasoning. Sorrynotsorry.

[Anonymous No.8810251]

>>8810196
>implying we won't all be better off if the Illegal Zionist Entity where to be wiped off the face of the earth

[Anonymous No.8810269]

>>8810251
No, I don't think so Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.8810277]

>>8810269
Nice Kol Nidre, Schlomo

[Anonymous No.8810287]

We should just sit back and let the Jews and the Muslims destroy each other, IMO.

[Anonymous No.8810304]

>>8810277
Fuck off /pol/tard. This thread isn't even about Israel, but you just have to infuse and shit up every single thread with your fucking inane anti-semite babble.

Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8810308]

True anti-Semites hate Jews and Muslims equally.

[Anonymous No.8810316]

>>8809015
>Theist
>Intellectual
Pick one

[Anonymous No.8810320]

>>8810316
Where did he claim to be a theist?

[Anonymous No.8810329]

>>8810320
The Joe Rogan Podcast, he argues for a belief in God. He's also seems real butt hurt about atheism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48V0m2lia5U

[Anonymous No.8810333]

>>8810329
Sounds like you're an autist incapable of nuance.

[Anonymous No.8810378]

>>8810329
He didn't say he was a theist in that podcast, nor did he argue for a belief in God specifically.

[Anonymous No.8810388]

>>8810333
Yeah okay, and ad hominem is nuanced.

[Anonymous No.8810396]

>>8810388
Either way, JP has a very idiosyncratic take on religion. It can't be reduced to simple theism and then summarily dismissed simply because you lack the brainpower to listen to what the man is actually saying.

[Anonymous No.8810577]

>>8810329
Peterson had perfeclty good points in this, and it's nice to know he's been saying exactly the same thing for years. That retard who called Obama a Marxist, though: LOL. I did, however, appreciate that atheist guy calling out male genital mutilation, even if it was a non sequitur and misinterpretation of Peterson's point.

[Anonymous No.8810692]

Peterson has come closer than anyone to convincing me to doff my fedora. Should I do it, lads?

[Anonymous No.8811105]

What Sam Harris is, is good at expressing himself succinctly and framing his thoughts very well. His thoughts are "common sense" and rationality. I wouldn't put him at the top, if not as a testament to our culture.

[Anonymous No.8811113]

>>8810067
>Biology
>hardest of fucking sciences
>Implying this isn't the sort of thing writers from the Frankfurt School talked about
>but you were too busy memeing cultural marxism to listen

[Anonymous No.8811125]

>>8810692
I'm at the same point, I'm not sure how taking the leap of faith will help me much, I need some more convincing arguments as to why believing will help me in my day to day life.

[Anonymous No.8811166]

>>8809008
To me at least, and I think many others would agree that Sam Harris lost most of the credibility he had left after his arguments on artificial intelligence.

AI being in these days and mathematics not so much, everything he has said on the matter sounds more like mental gymnastics in order to garner the respectful nod of the reddit community or "the grand fedora" as I call it.

[Anonymous No.8811713]

>>8810577
How is Obama not a Marxist, or at the very least a puppet for globalist interests?

[Anonymous No.8811869]

>>8811713
He's never gonna seize the means of production for the proletariat, for one. Obama is your standard issue corporate friendly neoliberal, deep in the pocket of transnational capital. That's reason it's so easy to scam right wingers- for them it's only 'our side' and 'muh Sjw marxest' so when Trump staffs his administration with Goldman Sachs and military industrial shills they don't even notice

[Anonymous No.8811907]

>>8811869

I would literally take an entire Goldman Sachs administration over SJW Marxists.

[Anonymous No.8811913]

>>8809744

>2016
>Not hating Muslims

[Anonymous No.8811964]

>>8811869

>He's never gonna seize the means of production for the proletariat

That's not what people are accusing him of when they call him a Marxist. He operates under the regulation theory where instead of direct central planning of business, business are indirectly controlled through very tight regulations. In his 8 years there have been 20,642 new regulations placed on businesses and he oversaw various bailouts on the auto industry, the bank industry, the airport industry, and I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting. That is literally economic fascism which itself is a form of socialism because it is the government picking and choosing winners from the free market.

[Anonymous No.8811967]

>>8811964
>That's not what people are accusing him of when they call him a Marxist.

Well, then people should shut the fuck up and not use words where they don't apply.

[Anonymous No.8811974]

>>8811967
Well he can't prop up a hammer and sickle flag overnight but he has certainly made efforts to move our country in that direction. I see it from more of a cultural perspective in how he fuels the fire whenever there's black kids getting shot by cops (If I had a son he would look like Trayvon) and in the way he put so much time into transgender bathrooms. He's encouraging the revolution through an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy, not necessarily proletariat/bourgeoisie

[Anonymous No.8811977]

>>8811967

it is correct usage because the regulation theory is Marxist.

[Anonymous No.8812001]

>>8811977
So basically you want to get even more cucked by oligarchs than you already are? The state and the market have always been closely linked. Think about the massacres of striking workers by cops at the turn of the century. The market is not really free, since it needs men with guns nearby. 'Libertarians' typically have a naive view of Law as something that really exists and is equivalent with morality, rather than an instrument of class/state power. Since WWII, the U.S. has had a planned economy run for the profits and benefits of oligarchs.

[Anonymous No.8812006]

>>8812001

>'Libertarians' typically have a naive view of Law

Whereas you guys typically have a naive view of State.

[Anonymous No.8812015]

>>8812001

There can be no oligarch without the help of the state and when that happens it is no longer free market capitalism. It is crony capitalism which is just a fashionable word for socialism. You can see all throughout history you'll see that the most powerful corporations are the ones that this promote socialist regulation in order to snuff out any sort of competition. It increases the barrier of entry for new entrepreneurs until we eventually get state sanctioned monopolies like we have with every major utility in the US. This simply wouldn't happen in a free market.

[Anonymous No.8812031]

>>8811713

>globalism
>Marxism

Wtf, are you guys butfuck retarded?

[Anonymous No.8812033]

>>8812031

What's the problem? Marxism is literally international communism.

[Anonymous No.8812036]

>>8809008
Is that Ben Stiller?

[Anonymous No.8812037]

call your father

[Anonymous No.8812042]

>>8812006
I'm anti state tho. Wouldn't a private property regime just be a state by another name. They can still starve you to death and unleash the cops (ahem private security agencies) on you if you dare complain. They will still tax you (ahem service fees) and it's likely you'll have even less of a say in any of it than you do in our sham electoral democracy. It's basically a moral worldview that assumes private peoperty is the ultimate good. Serves you well if you are part of the renting aristocracy, not much good for anyone else. Anyhow, how exactly are you going to get people to adhere to your arbitrary absolutist moral economic system which has never actually been implemented in human history?

[Anonymous No.8812043]

Poor man's Hitchens

[Anonymous No.8812113]

>>8812042

>Wouldn't a private property regime just be a state by another name.

No, because it's not a regime but rather self-enforced. According to you there's no such thing as anarchy.

>It's basically a moral worldview that assumes private peoperty is the ultimate good.

As opposed to "muh equality"/"muh Human Rights" and the various other spooky muh's of Western Liberal Democracy.

[Anonymous No.8812115]

>>8812042

>Anyhow, how exactly are you going to get people to adhere to your arbitrary absolutist moral economic system which has never actually been implemented in human history?

You've built yourself a nice and easy to tear down strawman here. Libertarians merely hold the position the less regulation and government interference in business is for the best and that is what we should pursue. History has shown time and time again that prosperity follows freedom while poverty follows regulation. A great example of this is Sweden. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the relatively free economy gave rise to all sorts of great inventors and entrepreneurs like Nobel, Wingquistm Dalen, and Platen and it allowed Sweden to have the highest per capital income growth in the world between 1870 to 1950. Starting in the 1930's Swedish politicians began moving towards a fascist style socialist "planning." With an ever growing welfare state, high taxes and new regulations, government spending and the number government employees rose, and while they were able to live off the hard work and innovation of the previous generation for a while, they couldn't avoid economic reality. By the 1980's economic growth collapsed and the real estate and stock market bubbles burst. Interest rates at the Swedish central bank rose 500 percent by 1990. Sweden fell from 4 to 20 in international income comparisons. This thankfully led to a revolt against the socialist regime that led to a more conservative government that abolished currency controls, reduced marginal income tax rates, deregulated bank lending, privatized central government enterprises among other things. Sweden's national debt went from 80% of GDP in 1992 to 40% by 2008. This is just one of many examples of countries that are slowing being restored from destructive socialist policies. An even easier example of prosperity following freedom would be Britain before and after Margaret Thatcher began deregulating their economy.

[Anonymous No.8812182]

>>8812115
Not who you are responding to but this has to be bait.
Under tripartite corporatist rule [there are parallels to fascism but it was hardily in anyway really socialistic] Sweden saw some of the most impressive development worldwide. After conservatives took over it became a total mess, Sweden today is a prime case study of the failure of neoliberalism. Thatcher had to completely destroy British industry to create the illusion of "prosperity".
Liberalism has only ever caused noting but chaos for the grand majority of populations worldwide.

[Anonymous No.8812206]

>>8812033
Stupidest shit I've heard. Globalism favours corporations, Marxism (is supposed to) favours the state.

[Anonymous No.8812304]

>>8812182

>Thatcher had to completely destroy British industry to create the illusion of "prosperity".

How exactly would destroying industry create the illusion of prosperity? Would you rather live in Britain 5 years before Thatcher or 5 years after Thatcher?

[Anonymous No.8812315]

>>8812304
What Thatcher brought was mostly short term. Upon leaving office unemployment was at a high, debt was rising, etc.

Why d'yall think she got ousted?

[Anonymous No.8812327]

>>8810329

Arguing for a belief does not necessarily mean he is a believer in God. His studies on the nature of divinity in the context of shaping the human mind is much needed and wondrous work. Also, that youtube video you point out shows to me that Atheists are the butt-hurt ones and spout the same non-arguments they have for decades and betray their anti-intellectualism. Peterson was amused and in control that entire time, and the old man and the grease-slicked reject for the new Star Wars film were fumbling.

[Anonymous No.8812337]

>>8812315
>What Thatcher brought was mostly short term

Industry died but that's because they were in bed with the government. Her efforts to deregulate the economy broke that marriage and allowed competition which is why the reforms of the 1980s paved the way for the 16-year boom between 1992 and 2008. That is not short term.

[Anonymous No.8812350]

>>8812337

> industry in bed with the government

When actually:

> industry was plagued by the unions
> the unions kept the economy hostage
> Thatcher wanted to thwart the unions

Yfw you learn Thatcher was on a personal vendetta and made the country worse

[Anonymous No.8812365]

>>8812350
>and made the country worse

Then how do you explain the state of the economy before she arrived and the long term economic boom that took place after her reforms? You're simply looking at what immediately followed the reforms while ignoring what truly matters, the long term results.

[Anonymous No.8812376]

>>8812365
>the long term results.
Really bad stagflation?

[Anonymous No.8812380]

>>8812376

I'm referring to the economic boom that took place between 1992 and 2008.

[Anonymous No.8812383]

>>8812376

Do you mean this, the recession that took place before Thatcher was even in office?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9375_recession

[Anonymous No.8812388]

>>8812380
1992 was a fantastic year for Conservative economic and financial ability for sure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oET45GzMI

[Anonymous No.8812403]

>>8812383
>global stagflation
>it was all Labour's fault!
>global economic crisis
>damn Labour y u do dis to the whole world???
The moment it's them tanking only the UK economy
>we dindu nuffin!!!

[Anonymous No.8812405]

>>8812388

Yeah I'll watch that 50 minute Youtube video and I'll get right back to you. You have no arguments.

[Anonymous No.8812421]

>>8812405
>I don't know what Black Wednesday is yet feel confident talking about the success of Conservative economic policy in the 90s
:/

[Anonymous No.8812423]

>>8812365
The 70s throughout the entire capitalist world was when you reached the end of the post-WWII investment boom and the structural limitations of textbook Keynesianism and an unwillingness to go beyond that.
Finance and liberalization of trade [imagine if all those impoverished Chinese peasants didn't exist] was the only real alternative option put on the table and it did bring big benefits [of course not spread evenly]. Debt and credit cards were what really saved the day.

[Anonymous No.8812497]

>>8812327
>>8810378

If I remember correctly he outright said he was a theist twice on the JRE podcast.

[Anonymous No.8812666]

>>8811713
oh my god

[Anonymous No.8812668]

>>8811913
I still agree with half of these

[Anonymous No.8812693]

>Shilled for the Hill
>Is an edgy fuckwad
>Uses memes to try and disprove free will
>Is full of himself
No thanks