/lit/ - Literature

>I'm a fucking loser

>I have no friends or social skills whatsoever

>I have never had a girlfriend much less a friend

>I have no job or aspirations

>I have no skills whatsoever except being able to browse the internet for porn and playing video games

>I live at home with my parents

Must be because I'm a genius.

>>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.

>>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.

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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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'.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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
>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.

>>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'.

>>5592278
>That dot wasn't there originally. He made lots of copies of 'Black square', used shitty paint and most of the copies weren't conserved too well.

I was just kidding. Thanks for the information though that's interesting.

>>5592218
***white dot

>>5592213
That what dot in the middle is absolutely genius.

>>5588754
It's incredibly boring because it gets off to such a heavily slow start. You describe the crowd far too much in my opinion and by the time we get to meaningful dialogue involving 'Dorian', I don't care anymore.

>“Fascist is a bit of a strong word, don’t you think?” he engaged the stranger, and feeling as though something else needed to be added,

>and feeling as though something else needed to be added,

Why does that need to be there? Condense it and just take that out and continue with what he's saying.

>The young lad appeared disappointed to find somebody in opposition to his strong feelings, and a look of frustration came across his face as though he was speaking and struggling to be heard, as with difficulty he tried to find the correct words to say.

Who the hell is this dumb fuck 'lad'? How is Dorian opposing him when he barely said anything at all? Why are people rioting? You could have had a meaningful exchange here.

It's obvious this trailed off quickly as you say because there's no real drive to it at all. Definitely spend less time describing things that have no bearing on what's going on. The dialogue is also weak. Do you find it more difficult to write dialogue?

>>5588744
That better be fucking Nesquik you're drinking.

>>5588625
Mozart barely lived at all. Had he lived to be 80 we might not even be talking about Beethoven because Mozart would have ushered in the Romantic Movement. Schubert should absolutely be included in the greatest composers list, but for me personally he was not as great as Mozart. I will say though that Schubert wrote some of the most gorgeous lieder out there. Better than almost anyone.

>>5588630
lol it is a good piece but that's not exactly what he's looking for. If it works to get him addicted then great, but it's a difficult piece to access. He's looking for lighter things at the moment. Go for it if you want though.

>>5588554
Oh yeah Chopin is great for you then. I highly recommend Mozart and that movie Amadeus. It'll be a nice introduction to his music including instrumental and opera as well.

>>5588510
Also I don't know what you like. Do you like soft lyric music or huge bombastic soul shattering shit? Most symphonies will contain both of these things however.

>>5588510

Start with Mozart. Easiest to get into. Watch 'Amadeus' the movie too; it will give you some really great snippets of his music and then you can buy the soundtrack to listen to the pieces. The pieces you'll hear will doubtfully be the full ones(it will probably just be movements of the full pieces) but still it'll be a good introduction. From there you can find the full piece of whatever you want and listen to it. The movie itself is also very very good. It isn't fully historically accurate of course, but it's still very good.