Can we have a serious discussion about Sam Harris here? >inb4

File: costanza.jpg (23KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x600px

>Can we have a serious discussion about Sam Harris here?
No

>want to have a discussion about an often-memed "intellectual"
>doesn't want memeing to block the discussion
>provides no start to the discussion

fuck you, sage thread

File: 1459110921998.jpg (338KB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 1920x800px

>>8059304
>Can we have a serious discussion about Sam Harris here?
Nah

>>8059304
His name is Ben Stiller, actually.

File: costanza.jpg (17KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 250x250px

>>8059304
> great philosopher and thinker

>>8059316
>>8059320
>>8059323
>>8059326
>>8059333
>le dismissive of Sam without reason meme

Enjoy your short-lived one-upping boost of self-esteem.

You're only stifling your own enlightenment

>>8059342
so tell us about him that we might discuss. Any claim not backed by quotations will be disregarded.

>>8059342
>Being this much of a pleb.
Jesus Christ.

>>8059348
you all seem to know so much so as to be so dismissive? Surely I haven't any need to provide any more info

>>8059356
No you're right you probably don't

>>8059304
>Nobody makes me bleed my own blood!

haha I love Zoolander

He's not a great philosopher. He hasn't said anything original at all.

>>8059367
go away OP

>>8059367
>solves ethics
>not original

>first person to ever concisely destroy chomsky in a debate, leaving him utterly finished
>not relevant


k.

>>8059375
>solves ethics
elaborate.

>>8059375
>Thinks Ben Stiller solved ethics.
Yeah, because that's not still a problem people need to talk about, Ben Stiller has literally all the answers. Sure. (What a mental case)

>Bested Chomsky in debate
Keep dreaming, even Ben Stiller himself said it wasn't a debate, and there wasn't a winner or a loser. You are just making rubbish up. Stop shitposting, faggot.

File: nietzsche who?.png (74KB, 700x1080px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 700x1080px

>>8059378

>>8059383
le ad homi response :^)

>>8059384
Autism the book?

>>8059375
>first person to ever concisely destroy chomsky in a debate

that wasn't the first time bruh

>>8059367
this tbqh

he's like the neil degrasse tyson of philosophy. he hasnt really contributed anything, but he's a good communicator.

>>8059397
who?

>inb4 le bald autist power man

>>8059392
Good thing I can still do that, you being a Harriscite would say it's justifiable to torture and kill me because I don't agree with him. Oh yeah, that's moral.

>>8059401
> good communicator.
Hes a good entertainer (for autists). Nothing more.

>>8059402
chomsky got btfo by my sister once

>>8059406
when did he say it's justifiable to torture people who disagree with him?

>>8059402
literally anyone chomsky has "debated" with about anything not directly related to the field of linguistics

File: foucault.gif (13KB, 184x233px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 184x233px

>>8059402
>being this mad

>>8059412
he makes philosophy more accessible. even though it's watered down, his books feature more philosophy than the average person will ever read.

>>8059420
like Andrew Marr? :^)

>le prominent intellectual says us is ebil XD

i want chomskyfags to leave

>>8059406
>he's against extracting potentially critical information by torturing shitskins who would gladly and without a second thought chop your head off and film it because "muh fee fees"

limpwristed leftist cuck detected

>>8059428
Exactly this: Us Harrisites know that US is a benevolent but sometimes sloppy force.

Stay strong enlightened one.

>>8059419
>>8059429

He said it's morally justifiable to torture and kill suspicious Muslims because they might have information about America's enemies. He's an apologist for American foreign policy. So yeah, I'm a leftist because I think some things can be better solved with words than bullets. Shoot me.

Someone link that Churchland video where she embarrasses Harris in front of a huge audience

>>8059429
>he thinks torture is effective

have you ever read a report on the efficacy of torture? half the time they get bogus information.

>>8059440
that's not the sme as saying he says it's ok to torture people who disagree with him now, is it?

>>8059437
actually i think the us has done some evil shit, but i hate that chomsky downplays the role of radical islam in current middle eastern affairs.

>>8059448
Define 'suspicious Muslim' - of course it is. I just don't happen to be a Muslim.

>>8059442
she doesn't. she just spouts some shit that and rambles and then some hume faggot gets flustered and angry cuz 'muh old scottish man' is getting btfo

>>8059402

I remember Buckley Jr. running rings around him, in the old days.

>Tfw no intelligent paleoconservative talkshow hosts to #rekt people

>>8059453
think for 1 second. Do you think what he said is the same claim as the blanket statement: 'It's OK to torture those who disagree with me'

Does he say it's OK to torutre all Christians, Chomsky, anyone who dislikes meditation?

What are you talking about?

>>8059429
Yeah, it's pretty obvious where the morality is in 'Oh god, please make it stop! Yes, Atlantis is real and Hitler lives there! PLEASE STOP THE PAIN! I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!'

>>8059457
Buckley and Foucault?

>>8059457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaR-T_hqRSM

i thought chomsky won tbqh

File: Mfw I rode the tiger to its final destination.gif (175KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 500x375px

>>8059468

Que?

>>8059469

I didn't think so. He got pretty flustered, being generous.

>>8059462
Yeah, think for one second about the implication of saying it is morally justifiable to torture anyone so long as you have 'good intentins'. No about of pseudo-intellectual drivel is going to get you out of that.

>>8059473
lol, only a complete baiter could think Buckley won. He even yelled at Chomsky after saying: 'I'll teach you a thing or two'

Kek, literal cuck

File: blue_8be3f6e5-e1af-4f27-a61b-7da6b6bf7899.jpg (196KB, 1249x1561px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1249x1561px

>>8059440
>I'm a leftist because I think some things can be better solved with words than bullets
>FREE PALESTINE!

>>8059469
all the comments are just ad hominem attacks on buckley/chomsky

>I'm so glad this Buckley douche bag is dead. The idiot kept interrupting Prof. Chomsky. The constant expressions & the fact that he kept putting a pencil in his mouth is clearly some sick oral fixation.


>chumpsky is a turd, a weak far left bottom-feeding lowlife who should have been buried 6 feet under 50 years ago like the worthless scumbag he is. Fucking garbage is probably still apologizing for pol pot's mass murders...


kek

>>8059482
Lol, not even what I think. Try again.

>>8059412
Actually he's a pretty shitty entertainer. He's probably the most boring person to listen to on the planet.

>>8059466
look at this post. don't ignore it. Answer to it.

File: StefanManawana.jpg (40KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x400px

>>8059482
not an argument

>>8059479
I'm pretty sure you agree that it's justifiable to torture anyone so long as you have good intentions, it's just a question of what the intentions are.

E.g. take an extreme scenario, you believe that torturing someone will prevent them from setting off a nuclear bomb which'd destroy millions of lives?

Are you still just going to say 'nope, no torture'?

Of course not. The question is about what is a 'good intention' not about the question of whether there ever could be one. If you beleive that you're deluding yourself.

File: You know this feel.jpg (109KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1000x1000px

>>8059481

>To clarify: Buckley's comment "smash you in the goddamn face" is Buckley making fun of himself for famously losing his temper in his debates with Gore Vidal. See the recent documentary, Best of Enemies.

Not to mention that Chomsky has been politically discredited, in perpetuity, for his wilful ignorance over what happened in Communist regimes.

He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting their crimes.

>>8059483
0/10

>>8059496
yeh, that's not the bit i'm talking about obviously. They laugh about it

>>8059491
the times it didn't work will have been worth the one time it did work, that's my answer

inb4 some hysterical weenie response about muh human rights from a progressive white teenager who lives in his parents basement and has never even seen a muslim irl

>>8059493
Yeah, it's always that simple outside of some philosophical seminar.

>>8059492
>picture of le bald libertarian cult man

not an argument

>>8059506
>>cult

i bet you think taxes arent theft

>>8059505
it's always that simple because it's always that simple

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuNsu-15HYM

>>8059511
Some things are so poorly thought out they require no further response.

>>8059514
ive never seen someone get so btfo

i actually gained a bit of respect for harris

>>8059515
Recall the context. I am not saying I want to impose any laws or say anything general about how torture should be applied. I'm simply making a case that there are some situations where torture may be appropriate. Recall my example.
So before you were so dismissive of it as even a possibility. Where do you stand now?

>>8059304
How can a serious comedic actor star in a movie like Night at the Museum?

>>8059538
night at the museum is good fun tb h

>>8059535
Harris himself gave a good scenario about a baby in a car. No torture even in that case is not ethical - it might be the only way to do something ethical, save the baby, but it is not in itself ethical. The morality of actions changes depending on intentions.

>>8059555
Sorry, typo: the morality of actions doesn't change depending on intentions.

>It's a Harris/Molyneux Trying to Become a Respected Thinker Episode

>>8059564

>Judging the popularity of anyone whilst they are alive

The true test of one's personality is how it holds up long after they (and their contemporary audiences) are dead.

>>8059556
yes it does. are you really rejecting that there are instances in which the end justifies the means? if they didn't "torture" that guy the baby would have likely died. not doing anything would have been the immoral action, since it would have indirectly killed a child. from a utilitarian standpoint, briefly hurting a guy is less suffering than allowing a baby to die from the heat.

No torture even in that case is not ethical - it might be the only way to do something ethical

eh

the morality of actions doesn't change depending on intentions.

How do you remove intention from action, they're intrinsically linked.

If I push a kid into the road and he's run over or if I slip and the exact same action is set in place except I completely didn't want to push the kid onto the road but my body and his body and everything did the exact same thing.

You can't possibly think those are equivalent in terms of morality.

>>8059564
>implying they already arent

stefan has a bigger cult than you ever will

>>8059573
If the end always justifies the means, what measure do you have for judging the ethical merits of the means? Think about it. Yes, I reject that utilitarian point of view.

Didn't we already have centuries where people, including Kant/etc, argued that we should stop with the retarded folly whereby we see other Human Beings as means, rather than ends?

Whatever 'end' you might have in mind with torture/etc, the victim is also an 'end'.

>>8059423
A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.

>>8059570
>>8059585
Kek

>>8059588
The ends don't always justify the means. You have to take it case by case. The same way you can not do anything but take the means case by case because they exist not in a vacuum but in relation to their expected ends. This is the only sane way to judge things.
You're being ridiculous

>>8059574
Because intention is always that clear cut. How do you know a psychopath did not frame pushing the kid into the path of a car as an accident when it was intentional. You have a lot of faith in other people - which seems naive. Have you ever met a psychopath?

>>8059590
Kant was a beta scrub who ruined philosophy and spawned generations of philosophical shitposting with his secular Christfag muh feelings philosophy

>>8059599
That's what I'm saying. So if something must be judged case by case, does that mean morality is solid or not? How could Harris be said to have solved 'morality' when there is in some cases this grey area?

>>8059588
>If the end always justifies the means

i never said always

>what measure do you have for judging the ethical merits of the means?

if the action causes less suffering ultimately, then it is justifiable.

>>8059621
So if it was deemed that it wouldn't cause much suffering to submit our lives to some leader who would then have total say over everything we say and do, that would be an ethical society?

>>8059613
This has nothing to do with whether or not Harris has solved morality and you know it. This has to do with the thing we've been discussing. Whether there are times where it could be deemed ethical to torture.

>>8059600
That is not intention, that is lying about intention. I've never said it would be easy to apply or that I'd believe people. That's why I talked about myself as that's a scenario where I can know, regardless of whether anyone were to believe me

>>8059510
Libertarianism is as much of a cult as feminism

>>8059637
>So if it was deemed that it wouldn't cause much suffering to submit our lives to some leader who would then have total say over everything we say and do

totalitarianism restricts liberty and thereby inherently causes suffering.

Does the wide success and proliferation of the views of sophists like Harris finally signal the end of philosophy as we know it? What's the use of real philosophy in a world where every layman is already convinced he's an expert?

>>8059653
>he fell for the liberal egalitarian "equality" meme

>>8059641
The claim Harris had 'solved' morality was where this thread started. I guess I disagree, I think while some times it is justifiable, it's not ethical to torture. Justifiable and ethical are not synonymous.

If you were only to apply it to yourself then fine, but it is when you apply actions on others based on intention that I start to object. Because you might never know someone's real intention. And people can say anything under torture, just to stop getting waterboarded. How would you ever know it was an accident or not? You can't. You are using extreme examples to prove your case - and yeah I can respect that, but those grey areas prove nothing when it comes to morality, aside from the fact you can do bad things for good reasons. That's just the brutal reality of the world.

>>8059653
I don't think a lack of liberty inherently causes 'suffering'. I do share a love of liberty however.

>>8059637

>if it was deemed

what would be the basis for deeming this? there's far too much uncertainty for this to be justifiable. we know that torturing the man harris mentioned will likely lead to him revealing the location of the car because there's a video of him committing the crime and refusing to answer will only worsen his punishment. the minor consequences of torturing the man (ie temporary discomfort) are outweighed by the overwhelming odds that they discover the location of the car.

>>8059360
>>8059375
>>8059378
>>8059384
lel

Can you just stop making these threads? Good on you for doing a less obviously trolling OP this time, I doubt reporting this thread would get it deleted offhand like the last one.

>>8059683
he said specifically that the tyrant would determine everything we say and do.

i agree that there are justifiable restrictions of liberty. for example, a person shouldnt be allowed to have weapons grade plutonium. but restricting every aspect of a person's life would cause tremendous amounts of suffering.

>>8059697
That's not for me to decide or even elaborate on further (I'm the anon you are responding to) - it was a hypothetical. The question still stands. If it is what you are saying, I don't agree morality just be judged on suffering.

>>8059710
On that we can agree.

>>8059304
Actually you can see a lot of what he thinks isn't that fleshed out, I heard him on a debate with Dan Carlin and most of his points were just bad.

>>8059674
>Justifiable and ethical are not synonymous.

What's the difference between justifiable and ethical in the real event which occured with the car and the baby?

I have not once asserted the case for waterboarding or justifiying torture as a law.You've just taken the argument elsewhere to cop out.

The funny thing is that although I don't anticipate a good answer to the above question, the original comment which got this whole thing started was me saying that I agreed with Sam that perhaps sometimes it is 'justifiable' to torture. Which you've just conceded. So there's the point already.

As for ethics. Whether one act is ethical has nothing to do with whether it would be ethical if you applied it as a blanket rule in other different scenarios. I'm totally on board with this notion that it shouldn't be used in the sense you seem to be suggesting. It just happens to be beside the point.

>>8059735
It's not a cop out to use a method of torture as a shorthand for torture. You seem smart - you know better than that.

Justifiable in terms of ethics or justifiable in terms of action? I agree with one, not the other. That's what this is about, isn't it?

I suppose that ethical has something more .... intrinsic to it that just cause and effect. To kill as an act is not moral, but to kill with reason is? Or are things more complex than that?

>>8059440
He sounds awesome. Now I'm going to read his books. Thanks anon.

>>8059469
>Joan of Arc was selective too
hon hon hon

>hates muslims
>/lit/ doesn't like him

No surprise there.

We have several Sam Harris troll threads every single day, and they all start out pretty much the same--as your own.

So no, we can't, and you have only yourself to blame.

>>8059829
I think Sam is making them all.

>>8059829
we just got one m80

nice one