/lit/ - Literature

>>5595076
From what I understand all atheists are neckbeards or edgy or both. I don't really get it but that seems to be the case.

yeah it's to do with some hat meymey i believe

He looks like Ben Stiller and since Ben Stiller is an asshole, he is an asshole by association.

/lit/ still believes in metaphysics.

Doesn't understand the distinction between "is" and "ought", publishes several bestselling books while being confused. Gets angry when people call him out on it. Starts a contest to have him proven wrong, ignores all valid counter-arguments, picks out the lamest and wrong counter-argument, defeats that while masturbating and pats himself on the back.

we're just jelly that he's published and we're not

>implying that anyone here has even read his books

He is one of the most widely read sources on modern ethics among lay people, despite his statements on ethics amounting to "utilitarianism is true, therefor we can use science to tell us what to do morally sometimes, ergo utilitarianism is true."

Ask literally anyone who studies ethics what they think of him.

>>5595137
this. he really doesn't get what philosophy even is, and seems to think that that's a point in his favor somehow.

>>5595116
I'm pretty sure he understands is vs. ought, he just disagrees with the distinction. There is a good debate on YouTube about it and I'm pretty sure he must address it in The Moral Landscape.

>>5596353
He absolutely does not understand it whatsoever

>>5596353
Not really. He came up with his 'philosophy' on morals and ethics from his masturbatory sessions with MRI scans. He has openly stated he doesn't read the moral philosophers because they're 'boring' and all of the works on ethics and morality should be discarded because of 'muh neuroscience'.

>>5596361

>>5596367

>>5596365
Are you implying fMRI scans aren't very useful tools for insights into the mind? Also, do you have a source on that open statement or are you just echoing what /lit/ and retarded bloggers say? He has said on multiple occasions that he is well-educated in moral philosophy and has read the texts, but he doesn't include them in his books because they are for a popular audience and it would bore them.

>>5596367
This comic is dripping with irony.

>>5596376
>Are you implying fMRI scans aren't very useful tools for insights into the mind?

Never said that. But they are completely useless for determining what is ethical and moral.

>Also, do you have a source on that open statement or are you just echoing what /lit/ and retarded bloggers say?

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

Skip to 7:55 to hear the statement. Also go to 57:32 to hear a real philosopher's take on the situation and own Harris.

>>5596376
>he is well-educated in moral philosophy

He has a bachelors degree and has openly stated we could simply ignore every philosophical work on ethics and morality. He is not well educated I'm sorry.

>>5596376
http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/harris_moral.html

Read that great piece on his book 'The Moral Landscape'. Here's a part of it and it really sums it up:

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". How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?

>>5596388
>Never said that. But they are completely useless for determining what is ethical and moral.
Well you and Sam Harris obviously disagree on that.

>Skip to 7:55 to hear the statement.
He did not say anything like that. He says that once you accept his premise, then you can ignore much of moral philosophy because it sort of steps over all that. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he never said that he has not read philosophy -- just that his argument makes them moot.

>>5596405
As he has said plenty, it's a book for a popular audience. He is well-read with regards to philosophy, and he chose to leave them out of his book because his argument makes sense without them and it might bore his popular audience.
Also, I got about half way through that review and had to stop when he took multiple quotes out of context that Harris has actually specifically responded to on his blog. Wow, Harris literally thinks we should kill people based on what they believe. I had no idea he was such a lunatic -- truly an insightful and well-reasoned review.

>>5596397
You realize you can read philosophy without a degree in it, yes? He also has a PhD in neuroscience.

>>5596438
>Harris literally thinks we should kill people based on what they believe.

But he actually does, and the "context" he provides in his butthurt response does nothing to change this.

>>5596445
If you think that, you're near-illiterate.

>>5596376

>Are you implying fMRI scans aren't very useful tools for insights into the mind?

>brain = mind

>>5596446

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

>Afghanistan and other Western wars in the Muslim world are justified acts self-defense because the people who live there have wrong ideas.

>>5596438
What premise? That everyone being in pain all the time would be bad? No shit it would, but ethics consists of much more than saying just that. He thinks this banal observation determines utilitarianism.

>>5596468
In fact it's generous to call it an observation, it's a tautology

>>5596438
>Well you and Sam Harris obviously disagree on that.

Because it's a belief without any scientific backing to it.

>He did not say anything like that. He says that once you accept his premise, then you can ignore much of moral philosophy because it sort of steps over all that. I don't necessarily agree with him, but he never said that he has not read philosophy -- just that his argument makes them moot.

Accept his premise BASED ON WHAT?

>might bore his popular audience.

Thankfully the great REAL philosophers never had such fears.

>ou realize you can read philosophy without a degree in it, yes? He also has a PhD in neuroscience

>Implying a PhD in Neuroscience gives you some kind of legitimacy in discussing philosophical issues.

>>5596466

Absolutely psychotic.

>>5596466
Here u go m8 he responded to it himself
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation
>>5596468
>>5596490
>What premise?
>Accept his premise BASED ON WHAT?
The whole debate is there for you to listen to..

>>Implying a PhD in Neuroscience gives you some kind of legitimacy in discussing philosophical issues.
>implying I implied that
>implying you didn't say he wasn't well-educated

The Young Turks is gay but Reza Aslan is based

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

>>5596497
I did. I've also read the entirety of his repugnant book.

>>5596490
>psychotic
His ethics is literally psychopathic because it ignores personal emotions and feelings and desires

>>5596498
Reza Aslan is a moronic Islam apologist.

>>5596497
>The whole debate is there for you to listen to..

Well-being means shit. If it's all about neurological happiness then if those people in the Middle East who live the way they do are neurologically happy, they have to be left alone. Oh but wait they are effecting Harris' well-being and the Western world's well-being right? So then we have to destroy them because of that? Very ethical.

>implying you didn't say he wasn't well-educated

He isn't well educated on philosophical matters; his B.A. in philosophy is testimony to that.

>>5596498

Reza is a bit crazy himself sometimes, but he KNOWS what he's talking about because he's a fucking SCHOLAR . Not some neuroscientist who has 'read' about religion, but he has studied it for many years and knows what he's talking about. I may not agree with everything Reza says, but his arguments make more sense than Harris' because of his education knowledge of the subject-matter.

>>5596508
>muh feelings.

You think any government on earth gives a shit about your feelings when pushing through legislation? At least Harris proposes using somatic markers and other empirical models in an attempt to capture 'muh feelings'?

>>5596511
This is literally bigotry

>>5596520
What crazy things has he said?

>>5595076
we don't like retards

>>5595116
>we're just jelly that he's published and we're not
>imlying I'm not published

>>5596523
>governmentalising ethics
allow me to puke

>>5596527
Yes, I'll admit I have intolerance for retarded ideologies and I'm not shy in calling them out.

>>5596527
>What crazy things has he said?

I never said he's said anything crazy, but 'crazy' might be a bit harsh. I'll just say that sometimes I disagree with what he says.

>>5596523

No they don't care at all. Let me ask you though, obviously the west affects the middle east's well being too. They are then justified to try and destroy us by Harris' logic. If the power was reversed where the middle east had more power than the U.S. for example, you wouldn't be able to say what they're doing is wrong because they'd be doing exactly what the U.S. is: Attacking another civilization because their ideas don't agree with ours and they are effecting our well-being because of those ideas.

>>5596540
Even with those ideologies, the U.S's. strongest ally there is Saudi Arabia which has beheaded more people than ISIS. Oh wait they have oil that's right so the 'ideas' are suddenly okay.

>>5596567
go to bed Glenn

>>5596572
Nice. Since you can't refute that, I'll assume you agree. Harris is trying to talk about ethics and morality on a global scale involving governments and civilizations with different 'ideas'. If he is trying that shit, then it's things like the U.S. being allied with Saudi Arabia that is going to shit on his 'theory'.

>>5596567
I stopped reading at " the U.S's. strongest ally there is Saudi Arabia" sorry mate

>mfw the countries where female genital mutilation rates are highest are Christian

>>5596591
Who is their strongest ally then? Take out strongest and then continue reading you dumb shit. The fact is the U.S. allies themselves with the very 'ideas' they are trying to destroy.

>>5596600
I'm not gonna debate about Saudi Arabia on behalf of Sam Harris since I have no idea what his feelings are on the subject.

>>5596591
> I stopped reading...
I hope you stopped because you suddenly felt a great surge of shame at your government, not because cognitive dissonance at encountering the truth shut your brain down.

>>5596620
>assuming I'm from America
>implying anything I said supported Sam Harris's ideas about ethics
nice one faggot

>>5596604
I don't want you to. I just want you to realize how insane -his ideas- are. He's taking his theory to a global level but fails to realize that governments frequently ally themselves with other countries who's ideas they don't agree with simply because it suits them monetarily or what have you. Harris is trying to make a global theory on ethics and morality but it will never work. As I said, those countries well-being is being effected by the U.S. and other countries as well, so they are justified to their self-defense and bloodshed because the U.S. ideas don't agree with their own. Harris can't simply apply his logic only to the country he supports.

Hell for all we know there is a musim Sam Harris somewhere in the middle east saying the same exact shit about the entire Western World: Western ideas such as democracy don't agree with our own, therefore, we are justified to destroy them.

>>5596662
You're extrapolating a lot of stuff based on one out-of-context quote.

>>5596699
Sigh

He already went onto his blog and put the ENTIRE quote down. It's here in this thread. This is the entire quote:

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

>We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

Because our ideas don't agree with theirs, we will continue killing them. Please forgive me, but Sam Harris is a fucking lunatic.

>>5596716
You're making it simpler than it is.
>certain beliefs that inspire them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others
>they cannot be captured, cannot be talked to
It's not just
>we disagree so we can kill them

What the hell man, Ben Stiller is a great actor. What is your problem?

>>5596716

Look at it like this:

"The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably. Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what Al-Qaeda and other Middle Eastern organizations attempted in the United States, and it is what we and other Middle Eastern powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and to innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Western world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."

It's perfectly reasonable from the other side as well because it's literally why they are attempting to destroy western civilization. That's why it's insane.

>>5596729
haha never gets old xD

>>5596539
Welcome to /lit/! where no one ever gets the joke.

>>5596572
Greenwald shits on Harris

>>5595076
He argues that science tells us what is moral, but then posits that improving well-being is the standard for morality without appealing to science. See the introduction to *Moral Landscape*.

So for those that aren't utilitarian, what moral philosophy do you think is true?

>>5595076

He's a Jewish propagandist who peddles a politically correct version of Christian Zionism for non-believers called New Atheism.

He's a hasbara agent pushing Islamophobia while masquerading as a disinterested retro-Enlightenment freethinker.

/lit/ doesn't have a problem with him, he's a pop philosopher, a joke. He's posted here for the same reason Dawkins is. The only people who actually rage about him are those who don't have a sense of humor.

>>5596372
>there are no mental events you're only imagining them
My sides

>>5596438
>if you assume this, we can step over the theory of evolution and pretend it doesn't exist
This works so well for other fields doesn't it?

>>5596438
Harris' argument literally is:
>we know what someone's brain looks like when they're happy
>therefore, utilitarianism is the one true ethics