mfw this brainlet can't even defend himself against a g

>>9112396
>all of that fedora brigade defending harris
Why did I scroll down? Why is superiority painful?

>>9112407
Is there a bigger hack than this cunt?

The day he is forgotten like Hitchens is the day I shall rejoice.

>>9112396
He completely and logically refuted the point raised.

>>9112433
He appealed to common-sense again, retard.

He can't define morality in terms of objective science and did not at any point in the video do so.

If, Moral=Well-Being=Chemicals

Then how do I derive what chemical causes happiness without first defining happiness and then in turn defining the chemical and how it relates to happiness ad infinitum.

Or another argument, Harris completely fails to defeat the is-ought problem.

In other words, fuck off, brainlet.

>>9112396
Are all grad students pretentious assholes who get erections hearing themselves talk all "smart" and stuff in a condescending manner?

>>9112457
t. brainlet who knows no philosophy actually thinks that question was complex because the guy used the phrase "low hanging fruit" and "common-sense"

In other words, >>>/r/eddit

>>9112454
>he's the brainlet
>yet you're the one incapable of wrapping your puny brain around such complexities
Mmkay

>>9112457

you already had your ass handed to you in the transheidegger thread, don't come in here looking for more folks to satisfy your need for humiliation

>>9112459
You're that grad student aren't you

>>9112465
No argument or response to the points made to be found.

Embarassing, get hidden, dork.

>>9112466
I don't know what you're talking about nigga, this is the first time I've talked about this dude, I just watched the video and was disgusted by mister "I'm a grad student I'm so smart and being a dick makes me cool" that's all. Just curious if all grad students are like this.

>>9112469
There is no need to get upset, not understanding complexities has to do with genetics mostly. It's nothing you can control, nobody faults you.

>>9112474
Reported and hidden. Thanks for playing, brainlet.

>>9112457
No, but they do exist at all levels of academia and should collectively die in a fire

>>9112478
I'm going to appeal this. How do I file appeals? This is a false report, I will not allow my name to be dragged through the mud like this.

>>9112454
And where do you think common sense is derived from? Fundamentally, a process understood by science. That was exactly what Harris said, guess it went over your head.

>>9112498
Notice how you ignored the other two points because they complete blew the fuck out of what you said.

>How do we know common sense?
>Hur dur through science buddy!

>How do we know scientific axioms?
>Hur dur through common sense dummy!


Nice contradictions you got there, brainlet.

>>9112454
He did appeal to common sense, but only as an example. His analogy to economic systems needs to be taken one step further; he should have conceded that his idea requries defining some arbitrary, agreed upon axioms of morality. However his point still stands that past some threshold amount of data, one could form a reasonably accurate algorithm to determine the correct course of action. The amount of knowledge needed is entirely unfeasible though, which is his real downfall.

>>9112498
Common sense tells me that Jews like you must be gassed and your kids sacrificed to the gods so the sun rises. "Common sense" is bullshit

>>9112396
I don't fully understand the context of this but it seems to be a talk about what science has to say about morality in its details of execution rather than about science defining morality.

Also Brian Earp is a tosser and the video description is embarrassing.

>>9112511
>algorithms to determine course of action and morality that are first created based on morality

I'm not going to spell this out for you, brainlet. Your ideas rely on contradictions.

Try again next time.

>>9112524
What is the contradiction? Can you clarify this. It seems like anon and Sam Harris did not say anything about how you arrive the axioms but just how you follow them.

>>9112508
>hurr durr you can't know nuffin
ok, deep stuff you've got there anon let me think on it ;^)

>>9112514
You can make up whatever absurd scenario you like, but there's evolutionary understood reasons for behavior, even the strangest and most contrary like altruism.

>>9112396

>doesn't read principia ethica once

>>9112396
Am I the only one who finds Harris hard to understand? I don't get the points he makes.

>>9112471
Yes, all grad students are like this, no exception. Then, now, and forever. Anyone grad student that tells you they aren't like this is lying. Billions and billions of grad students all throughout time are exactly the same.

So why does well being = morals

>>9112548
unironically this baka

>>9112548
Cool thanks man. Conformed my opinions in the matter. I whilst steer clear of them from this pint fall word.

>>9112546
He talks in that way to make it appear as if he is in fact not a brainlet to other brainlets

>>9112553
Its just common science

>>9112553
evolutionarily manifest

His explanation here was convoluted but his system of ethics is sound

>>9112586
lol

File: nietzsche.jpg (51KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 499x499px

>>9112534
Finally the scientists have given up trying to prove that altruism is fundamentally, never mind inherently human, and have settled for the idea that it's merely something that's evolved. They figured out, at least, that you can't start with altruism in this game. But what they have yet to figure out is that, for the same reason, you can't end with it either.

The greatest question of the moralizers hitherto has been the question of why God allows so much "bad stuff" to happen: death, mischief, fighting, rape, destruction and the dashing of hopes and plans. And the answer is, obviously, because God likes all that stuff. Because he loves mischief, conflict, destruction, and the dashing of hopes and plans — even his own, from time to time. Even a little rape now and then. God allows the "bad stuff" to happen because he himself is bad, among other things. Among many other good and hallowed things. And just like girls prefer bad boys, the universe prefers bad gods, and for the same reason (because "All good people are weak: they are good because they are not strong enough to be evil", said the Latuka chieftain Comorro to Baker).

There was far more equality on this planet before humans arrived. Subhumans think they invented it, but compared to us ants are practically equal. And the further back you go down the evolutionary tree, the more equality you find. Think amoebas, or even further back, hydrogen atoms. It is precisely the increase in inequality between the highest and lowest examples of a species that determines how high it stands in the tree of life, not the other way around, as the liberals are trying to convince us. The desire for equality is regressive, and every step towards it is a step back, towards monkeys, ants and amoebas.
Meanwhile, subhumans will continue to contend that things are more equal among us than among the other animals, but this philosophy of theirs is merely another symptom of the absurd amount of inequality that exists between us: so absurd that the majority of the population can fantasize about equality while, right in front of their eyes, the inequality chasm grows ever more gigantic. Not only are we not getting more equal then, but inequality is increasing every day, and the increasingly absurd theories that subhumans concoct to counter this increasing inequality are part of this rising inequality too, since they contribute to making a class of weak and stupid people ever weaker and stupider!

There were no subhumans in prehistoric times, for example. Dogs do not lie about and constantly demonize their obvious superiors. Dogs do not believe, let alone pretend to believe, like the subhumans, in equality. They don't preach that you will "go to hell" or "suffer bad karma" for doing the same things that every other lifeform since the beginning of the universe has been doing (i.e. killing and eating other lifeforms), ALL THE WHILE KILLING AND EATING OTHER LIFEFORMS.

>>9112433
Lol, no. He explained why he appeals to common-sense arguments.

>>9112580
>>9112585
Try again

>>9112604
tldr lol

>>9112407
thank you
those comments were painful

>>9112634
>median expectations for human judgement and intelligence.
sounds like science to me

>>9112498
Common sense is not derived from science, fanboy.

Common sense is an ambiguous slang used to refer to median expectations for human judgement and intelligence.

These expectations are derived from our day to day human interactions. We certainly do not get these expectations from science.

Scientists have been struggling to quantify intelligence at all levels for well over a century now. We can't even fully map the human neural networks yet, much less quantify the average moral process.

>>9112640
It isn't. These expectations are not scientific. We all have expectations for human performance. These are intuitive, and are born from our experience.

You don't understand science.

>>9112604
dude if ur gunna type 3 paragraphs u better make a tldr

nobody is gunna read that shit

>>9112646
the underlying logic is there for it to be quantified and mapped

it's like Harris said, economists are wrong all the time, it's a barely understood science, but it's obvious there are right and wrong answers. The fact we don't know the answers yet doesn't preclude their existence, it just speaks to a lack of sophistication in our methods.

>>9112604
t. pseud

>>9112650
I read it. We're on /lit/ you lazy feggit.

Still, you didn't miss anything.

>>9112636
>>9112650
>>9112653
If my posts are too lengthy for 'scientific' altruists to understand, that's their problem. And their dislike of that format only makes them continue to grow dumber, like altruism does.

>>9112649
>You don't understand science.
Literally, no, you.

>>9112651
>the underlying logic for common sense is there to be quantified and mapped
>the underlying logic for an ambiguous slang used to refer to median expectations for human judgement and intelligence

are u even reading what that anon typed?

None of the Stemtards have provided any arguments throughout this entire thread except reiterate Harris's statement that "it's just common sense" despite the fact the student was clearly asking him to provide an explanation that didn't rely on such non-existent axioms.

>>9112651
>I haven't studied the scientific method the post

The majority of science studies are wrong, brainlet.

Statistics are non-representative models used as tools to provide the allure of understanding.

Physics is no less of a science than economics.

>>9112665
i wouldnt generalize all stemtards with these idiots

EE major here; morality being objective is one of the most dangerous and autistic and dangerously autistic things i can think of

people that believe in an objective morality are tantamount to flat earthers at this point, there's no excuse

>>9112665
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

>>9112673
>people that believe in an objective morality are tantamount to flat earthers at this point, there's no excuse
What a retarded thing to say. Human beings share in the fundamental constraints of life, it'd be inane to suggest their behaviors don't develop along some line of commonality because of such.

>>9112681
wow you really got him good!!

Sam "Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true." Harris

>>9112673
They are no different to the philosophers they claim to hate by tangling themselves up in this nonsense.

They are unable to conceive the concept that morality not being an inherent property does not mean people have to act as though it doesn't within each individual's moral framework.

>>9112690
I did, there's a compelling proof that there are evolutionary underpinnings for all kinds of moral behavior. Just because faggots are too lazy to google it and scream 'stemfags no argument' doesn't make them credible in any way.

>>9112686
Define this """line""''

You've got 10 minutes.

>>9112686
you're worse than that kid in every class that raises his hand to ask a complicated question he already knows the answer to

>"what a retarded thing to say"
>proceeds to spew some cringy word soup that could've been been 10x less vague if he wasn't trying to sound so sophisticated

>>9112698
>>9112681
Brainlet linking me a Stanford link I've already read as though he is an intellectual.

Provide an argument or go back to plebbit.

I just hope everyone knows that this guy is considered a joke in academia.
Thanks for your time.

>>9112698
No, you didn't. You linked him like 25+ paragraphs hitting hundreds of points that he could never reasonably address. That's like telling you to read a book that I claim proves my point. You can't say it doesn't prove my point until you read it. It's ridiculous.

>>9112651
Harris' logic is childish.

He wishes to derive from man, an imperfect being, a perfect morality. This is not possible.

Not only is it not possible, but relegating moral judgement to the abstractions of science goes against every warning given by every single Existentialist philosopher since Kierkegaard. It will be the prophetic fulfillment of a naive and disastrous way of dealing with the social sphere.

What it really speaks to is a bourgeois desire to not have to think for ourselves, and to be "all watched over by loving machines of grace" (to borrow a phrase from Adam Curtis). As well as the desire to reject ambiguity, reject chaos, and hope that we can put all of life into neat little categories to suit our fears.

It is philosophically, in many ways, a step backwards.

I do appreciate his and your point of view however. Its premise is that by understanding the fundamental principles of physical phenomenon we can unriddle anything - be it chaos itself, or the chaos within ourselves.

Perhaps we can, but we're nowhere near that point, and it would be dangerous for our intellectual leaders to think otherwise.

>>9112697
this thankyou

File: sammy's face when.jpg (34KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 640x427px

At the end of the day Sam Harris is just giggling at the thought that people keep inviting him to speak and buying his books.
I don't believe he's legitimately as un-intellectual and obtuse as he seems sometimes, he just plays the part.
(That said, he's still obviously smarter than you average mainstream TV guest/commentator, so there's that.)

>>9112748
He its, literally, the Milo Yianoopoleleles of Meme Atheism.

Never forgetti

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse

>>9112748
Kinda feel the same about him Tbh. It's like he knows he's not really that smart, but he makes tons of money doing what he does so he's just like fuck it let's do it anyway

>>9112720
foryou.jpg

>>9112661
>the underlying logic for the median expectations for human judgement and intelligence
>the underlying logic for human judgement and intelligence
Now that seems a lot more reasonable.

>>9112673
If there is no proof that morality is objective, that does not imply that morality is subjective. Why is this so hard to understand?

>>9112795
I think Harris' confrontational and validation-seeking attitude is quite typical of boys who grew up without a father.
It's also not surprising that he's so invested in building up a "sky daddy" that has all the moral answers".

Sam Harris has developed a unique ability to suck the life out of any interesting topic, debate and conversational parter

File: 1487231208616.png (533KB, 898x893px) Image search: [Google]

533KB, 898x893px

Reminder that facial symmetry adds at least 2-3 points to facial attractiveness.

File: 1487231208617.png (532KB, 898x893px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 898x893px

>>9113191

>>9112454
>without first defining happiness and then in turn defining the chemical
After having defined happiness once, you can then define the chemical without having to again redefine happiness.

>>9112454
Common sense here only means "OBVIOUSLY these cases will lead to a net-deficit of human well-being" and if, as Sam argues, we agree that well-being is what we should be concerned about, then those actions are objectively immoral.

Is your problem that he's not taking harder cases where there are so many factors involved that we can't accurately say whether it's ultimately good or bad? Then refer to his economy example where they would face the exact same problem due to lack of information about every single factor involved, how people will react and so on.

>>9112396
Dear Brian Earp,

After having read your embarrassing excuse for an article on Sam Harris I have come to the conclusion that you are most certainly lurking /lit/ and are likely pushing the subject right now to gain attention for yourself. Please stop. You are too bland to become an intellectual celebrity. Study harder or get a sex change.

Kind Regards
XXX

American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker, Alexander Emerick “Alex” Jones, has an estimated net worth of $5 million.

>>9113337
Please do go on...

File: samharris.png (323KB, 1175x808px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1175x808px

>>9113340

>>9113348
He donates some large part of his wealth to charity every month.

>>9112703
>be retarded
>assume everyone who uses anything other than a 4 letter word is some kind of affectation
retard

>>9112396
>The moment you admit that morality....

He's talking about his own flavor of morality as if it's self-evident, and doesn't see that this is precisely the reason people object.

Moral axioms aren't self-evident. Moral rules have never in the history of humanity been about the "well-being of conscious creatures".

>>9112396
Sam Harris like, literally changed what we understand by the word 'intellectual'

Is Dawkins interpreting the speech into Morse code with his eyes?

>>9113550
That's what he's suggesting we should care about, whether or not that's what it has been or the past or whether everyone agrees that should be it is irrelevant to his proposal.

>uhh it's kinda like economics i guess idk LMAO
I love this brainlet

>>9114854
Argument [ ]

File: nudepepe.jpg (28KB, 400x422px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x422px

Is "the moral landscape" a bad book?

>>9113538

let's examine your sentence, non-retard

>assume everyone (who uses anything other than a 4 letter word) is some kind of affectation

"assume everyone is some kind of affectation"

oh wait you are retarded

Has Ben Stiller even debated a muslim theologian like a Tariq Ramadan?

>>9112714
This.

Harris is the culmination of the Western approach to morality, beginning with Kant, who want to treat morality as a set of natural laws.

This replaced character ethics, which focused on the kind of people we want to be, as opposed to a set of rules used to solve moral conundrums.

Character ethics is much better in my opinion, it means people are forced to actually themselves in hand and consider their actions in every circumstance.

Morslity as a set of natural laws takes everyone off the hook and allows them to pretend to be moral because they have been taught how to weasel out of abstract problems that only very occasionally arise in daily life.

>>9115618
>Harris is the culmination of the Western [...] to treat morality as a set of natural laws.

isn’t Confucius this way also though

>>9116212

Buddha too.

>>9116212
Only in neo-Confucian interpretation.

>>9112478
>I'm offended and not listening to you so I win

>>9112651
economics is wrong cos they aren't doing dialectics, actually it's the same reason that harris is wrong

>>9115586
>doesn't green text properly
>calls somebody else retarded

>>9115618
Well said.

It reminds me of a comment made by William Barret in the 1950's.

I'm paraphrasing - the source work is his, "Irrational Man"

[What separates modern man from ancient man is that he is capable of performing, with ease, a dizzying amount of abstractions. The abstractions the average citizen is capable of today would baffle the geniuses of antiquity. However, if asked, he is not able to tell you why the abstractions are performed a certain way, or how they came into being. He performs these tasks, not as an act of immense intelligence, but as the calculations of a machine processor.]

This is the ultimate end of such an abstract morality as well.

Is there any way in which harris is dialectical?

>>9115618
Why the fuck not? Why not based morality on a natural law? People get their morality from religion, from bad experiences, from their parents, from all variety of sources. Why not just find a set of natural law and based all your actions off of that?

>>9116329
Your question was already answered. Please read prior posts.

>>9116353

I don't think there were any good reasons provided.

File: 1462314251637.png (796B, 596x176px) Image search: [Google]

796B, 596x176px

>>9112396
>brainlet

File: blackmagic.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>9116293
>>9115618
Is it time for the world to realize that Vico was right? That constant abstraction gets us farther and farther away from the distinct and perceptible definitions that can be found in myth and metaphor?

>>9115519
yeah it is pretty bad.

>>9116359
Then the onus is on you now to counter them.

>>9116359
Yes, I agree with the other anon. I would like to hear your objections. Discussion is what's fun.

>>9116396
Interesting. I had never heard of Vico before. I'm assuming this is Giambattista Vico (he's the first one to pop up when I Google, "Vico")?

I'll have to read his works. Thanks.

At first consideration, I would say he is right. However, I am inclined to believe it is maintaining a healthy balance between these two poles which will yield man the greatest harvest.

>>9116212
Confucius in the Analects is a virtue ethicist.