Why does /lit/ hate harris?

Because he is popular. Welcome to 4chan.

>>9527083

He's reddit in the form of a single man.

>>9527083
Because he speaks the truth about race differences.

I don't like atheists.

>>9527092
this

>>9527083
Because everything he says basically amounts to "Religion is bad"

File: Screenshot_2017.png (65KB, 757x276px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 757x276px

Because pic related

>>9527202
Reminds me of the Sasha Grey existentialist picture.

>>9527083
I don't. I even own a few of his books. However, I don't pay much attention to his political views, especially after reading his exchange with Chomsky, in which he was completely BTFO. It's hard not to appreciate a thinker as lucid as he.

>>9527133
Most people on /lit/ don't care about that.
t. most people on /lit/

Because I've grown out of scientism

>>9527083
>Obscure narrow specialty
>Overstates the effects of drugs for normie
>Grabs on low hanging fruit
>Speaks in a calm manner

>>9527298
>Speaks in a calm manner

That's what I hate most about him.

His idea that intent excuses outcome is dumb as fuck tbqh. Everyone thinks their intentions are good, and if you were to point this out he will fall back to his holy grail meme of moral objectivism.

>>9529120
>His idea that intent excuses outcome is dumb as fuck tbqh.

Yeah, although the idea itself is not as controversial.
What's funny about Harris' take is that he doesn't seem to be aware of how much of a "might makes right" argument and Western tradition his whole morality stands on.
You could easily imagine a world where authoritarian Islamists held power and a pro-Jihad Harris explaining calmly how killing infidels isn't as wrong as killing muslims.

>>9529120

Except that's not what he said.

>>9527083
The mods need to start cracking down on Harris and Peterson threads. This is absurd.

This week there were three Peterson threads at one point.

>>9529120
>Everyone thinks their intentions are good

How naive are you actually?

There are plenty of people who do evil for the sake of the evil. Which is why the Columbine teens didn't just commit suicide in their basement, but felt they had to murder a bunch of innocent schoolmates as well just so everyone understood how much they hated life.

Do you really think they didn't understand that what they were doing was malevolent?

>>9529274
Freedom of speech, fuckwad.

>>9527186
>>9527092
I disagree, in fact his philosophy arguments remind of the battles of undergrad minds in /lit/ philosophy threads. Yes his religion stuff is cringey, but not nearly as bad as Dawkins but not nearly as good as Hitchens. I primarily listen to his current events/science guests, where he can at least lead a somewhat informed interview, even when faced with a lack of knowledge in the area.

I certainly dont know how he attracts rabid fans however.

>>9527234
You know that picture was edited, right?
The original picture was of her holding her own book.

>>9527083
Because he is a hack. A hack!

Also this: >>9527092

>>9529437
What, you think this one is real?

>>9527092

Reddit absolutely hates Sam Harris because of his anti Islam statements.

Consider this possibility. Imagine if everyone in your city was me, Sam Harris. Your mayor, your doctor, your entire postal service. The criminals in prisons. Even your dog, somehow, was me.

I invite you to ask - would that really be such a bad thing? Imagine the possibilities of a world comprised of only a single, solitary, utilitarian mind. Just think about how smooth and well-maintained the public utilities would be, for example. Your pizzas would show up exactly fifteen minutes after you ordered them. Your kids would get great marks in school.

All I'm raising with this thought is the possibilities of a world in which all are one. Where we think about not being Sam Harris in the same way we think about the slave trade, or FGM. This is a glorious horizon of possibilities I fail to find any flaws in.

>>9529449
How would a single mind be able to process all those different tasks at once? Unless they have autonomy of thought, in which case they're individuals again and we're worse off because there's going to be less variation in innovation.

>>9529446
It's not good to get all your information about the outside world from /pol/.

Reddit is very anti-Muslim.

>>9529454
You're looking too deeply into this.

>>9529444
Well it could be. I don't know... I just know that the sasha grey one was an edit since I saw the original picture years before the meme took off

>>9529462
>Reddit is very anti-Muslim.

I laughed at this. Browse by /r/all and not your niche communities like kotakuinaction or t_d

Reddit front page is the epitome of leftist SJW.

>>9527140

Atheists are fine. It's the ones that think they've got hold of something really big and you're too stupid to see it that are the problem. Be an atheist, just don't be an asshole.

>>9529468
>when you spend so much time in a literal neo-nazi echo chamber that you think that anything short of calling Muslims shitskins and goatfuckers is extreme SJW leftism
kek

>>9529468
Except they're not. Firstly, a lot of the liberals are of the "good lord!" variety and are basically just smug about being centrists (think Sargon of Akkad). So they hate Islam too. Then there's the fact that conservikiddies show up even in the SJW-leaning liberal safehavens (/r/politics &c.), and then there's the fact that those alt-right communities are about as big as the liberal/"socialist" ones (they just often aren't explicitly about politics, ex. pussypassdenied).

All of this I know because, fuck me, I like getting butthurt and sneering at plebs.

File: 66b.jpg (174KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 960x960px

>>9527083
If his transparent idiocy needs to be explained to you, you are a pleb that is utterly beyond hope. Just enjoy him, for fuck's sake.

He is completely wrong on science can solve moral claims.
He was completely wrong on the Trump stuff.
He is completely wrong on the religion debate.
He has no idea about female nature.

He got btfo by based Chomsky like all hacks like him.

>>9529539
>Chomsky
>Anything but a senile old pseud

See yourself out and don't post here again

>>9529547
t. Brainlet
you're just SEETHING that he btfo's everyone he debates with.

>>9529554
quite the opposite
he's a hack and the only people who like him are brainlets

he's the warren buffet of philosophy

>>9529588
not at all, he always comes out on top in any debate he's involved him, I'd be hard pressed to find one where he doesn't. His groupies are annoying though. I just appreciate him for who he is: a very intelligent erudite who is extremely good at debating and deconstructing the worldview of those he fires at. 99 percent of people who hate him are just frustrated by this and his groupies.

File: 1433581057822.jpg (79KB, 616x345px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 616x345px

>>9527083
He's not really a neurosceintist
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

Is a racist that swallowed american exceptionalism memes

Is basically an autistic alt righter that for some reason supports Israel

Is a liar
>but when did buddhists ever hurt anyone? :(
>what do you mean there are tonnes of Hindu and Buddhist terrorist acts? No i don't think its related to material conditions

His fan base is obnoxious

Edits his blogs

Gets into pointless arguments to make his sub-human fan base like him more
>le chomsky got pawn'd! better post it on my site XD

And, most importantly, he's a rabid materialist and anglo-consequentialit

>>9529600
No, I just think he's overrated and worshipped by morons (like you) when in reality, he's not all that clever as he'd like you to believe

Didn't he claim that the Republicans in the US are the worst group of people to ever exist, or something similar? The guy is out of his mind.

>>9529600
He failed miserably to demonstrate his point to Chomsky.

>self-serving metaphor that completely misses the point
>self-serving metaphor that demonstrates how delusional he really is
>lmao! getting old huh Chomsky?

He couldn't even have a honest debate with Ben Afleck for fuck sake

>ISIS cuts off heads and we wont don't do anything about it. That goes to show how soft Obama is on Islam
>what do you mean Obama declared the war the next day?
>I love how liberals are so quick to call me a racist even though I never even googled Islam or any of the countries I assume are bad

He's literally retarded.

>>9529612
And he said that it was an outrageous claim and the key word was 'potentially' and that is because of climate change.
You'd have known that if you weren't regurgitating second hand drivel and actually researched the subject more which I know you won't as you just want him to fit in your worldview as an insane leftist.
And spoken like a true brainlet you just say 'hack' and 'moron' thinking you made a point, I suggest you watch some of Chomsky so you can learn from him how to actually make a point.

>>9529626
I don't give a fuck about your opinion though bro
Chomsky is a hack

File: a62.png (262KB, 680x661px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 680x661px

The real answer is /lit/ is filled with brainlets and pseuds

>>9529631
and just like that you confirmed everything in my post.
keep embarrassing yourself brainlet.

>>9529446
Reddit hates muslims and loves Sam Harris, pretty much anything Sam Harris says is the mainstream opinion on reddit

>>9529641
reddit is too mainstream to have one opinion, it's like saying facebook has an opinion.

>>9529611
>for some reason supports Israel

He's a jew.

>>9529641
Anon, are you lonely? Internet forum-based identity politics? You need help.

>>9529626
holy shit, being this butthurt about someone not liking the overrated gnome propped up by twenty something starbucks revolutionaries. calm down mate, enjoy him, not everyone's gonna bow to the same shrine. don't be upset.

>>9529640
sure thing retard
Chomsky is a hack
You like him because he's a pseud like you

>>9529641
All of the western world should hate Muslims

>>9529654
As if it wasn't obvious, lol
He's an honorary kike with that thing

>>9529807
keep going brainlet
>>9529664
You have to have an axe to grind to claim I'm the one who was upset at someone's opinion on the internet. see him here being upset at that very thing >>9529547

>>9527083
because he's smug and thinks he's right about things which have no answers to

>free will isn't real lol!
>the self isn't real lol!

>>9529612
yea he said the republicans are the worst group of people in human history because 'unlike ISIS' they want to destroy civilization

he's a laughing stock at this point

>In the midst of this ordinariness, however, I was suddenly struck by the knowledge that I loved my friend. This shouldn’t have surprised me—he was, after all, one of my best friends. However, at that age I was not in the habit of dwelling on how much I loved the men in my life. Now I could feel that I loved him, and this feeling had ethical implications that suddenly seemed as profound as they now sound pedestrian on the page: I wanted him to be happy.

>What did I care if my friend was better looking or a better athlete than I was? If I could have bestowed those gifts on him, I would have. Truly wanting him to be happy made his happiness my own.

>A certain euphoria was creeping into these reflections, perhaps, but the general feeling remained one of absolute sobriety—and of moral and emotional clarity unlike any I had ever known.

>And then came the insight that irrevocably transformed my sense of how good human life could be. I was feeling boundless love for one of my best friends, and I suddenly realized that if a stranger had walked through the door at that moment, he or she would have been fully included in this love. Love was at bottom impersonal—and deeper than any personal history could justify. Indeed, a transactional form of love—'I love you because'.

He literally wrote this in one of his books.

>>9529401

Hitchens literary talent was limited to turning a good phrase. He seriously couldn't write with anything approaching clarity or structure. It really limited him.

His book about the Clintons was almost gibberish, and I hate the Clintons.

>>9530085
yea his word saladry is unbearable

>>9530076
and he would still be perfectly able to defend that.
that's what I was admiring about him. I admire him as a sophist.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 200x267px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x267px

Because he is a hack

>>9527265
>especially after reading his exchange with Chomsky, in which he was completely BTFO
>It's hard not to appreciate a thinker as lucid as he

You don't pay attention to his political views, you believe chomsky left him BTFO
And you think it is hard not to appreciate him as a lucid thinker
These seem like contradictory points

>>9530156
Ya, but this thread is about Sam Harris.

The fact that he is such an uninspiring hack that he didn't warrant much discussion causing this thread to become a Chomsky thread

He's simply annoying. His moral theory is retarded, his logical positivism is retarded, and he also refuses to apply his critiques of Abrahamic religion to his own pseudo-Buddhism.

>Intellectual.
>Atheist.

I just can't.

>>9530207
tips mitre

>>9529650
>>9529656
I responded to someone doing the same thing =, read the comment i replied to. most people on reddit hate muslims and love Sam Harris, pretty much anything Sam Harris says is the mainstream opinion on reddit

>>9527083
>Why does /lit/ hate harris?
He proved himself to be a total fool in his talks with Peterson.

>>9529282
Everyone who isn't mentally ill.

>>9527265
The only reason people think Chomsky won that battle was because Harris retreated and didn't want to engage further. For good reason though, Chomsky kept leading him in circles hoping to catch him off guard since he can't win with raw arguments.

Reasonable people look at that as Chomsky having another episode of epileptic seizure while brainlet socialists view it as a momentous victory.

File: 1492783820165.png (335KB, 439x525px)

335KB, 439x525px

>>9527083
Sam Harris is a philosopher in the same way that Niel Degrasse Tyson is a scientist. At the end of the day he's a pop figure presenting the shallowest of ideas, vetted first and foremost by their novelty to his demographic. There's a reason he takes a stance against Abrahamic religion, it smacks of controversy in America, but doesn't take it to its logical conclusion and really does pussy out in critiques of Islam and Judaism (he's very pro Israel, shocking), someone who went all the way would be Christopher Hitchens, who at least was genuine whatever his faults.

Sam Harris exists to promote Sam Harris, not the truth. Just look at that debacle he had with Chomsky, he basically tried to get in some kind of intellectual quarrel with him and Chomsky just wrote him off. He'd never even heard of him. Harris proceeded to make a big stint stink about it, wanting to capitalize on Chomsky's image of an intellectual by pretending to have 'defeated' him.

The man is entirely pathetic, all his talk of moral objectivism throughs science is totally without proof, but because he introduces him as a neuroscientist people are ready to respect him. He is the very definition of presenting not your ideas based on merit, but through posturing.

>>9530288
t. Sam Harris

>>9530254
>Peterson

hello /pol/

>>9530304
t. 'social libertarian'

>>9530308
Let it go Sam

>>9530324
not until I convince my followers that you are a hack

>>9530085
>>9530100
I haven't read that but thought Hostage to History by him was very good.

>>9527083
This guy is still being shilled around here?

I quite like his podcasts.

File: 1493227692890.jpg (88KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 960x720px

>>9530305
I almost wish Peterson never said anything about trannies, it occupies .1% of what he actually talks about but is the only thing the general public associates him with.

>>9530361
>it occupies .1% of what he actually talks about

Nonsense, and the rest of it doesn't have any merit either.

>>9530371
I'm overwhelmed by the substance of your post.

>>9530384
Ah, then I can see as to why you'd think Peterson's drivel has any substance.

>>9530361
his tranny shtick is far more interesting than whatever it is he talks about

the dudes a jungian fanatic

>>9530085
I quite like Hitchens, and have somewhat of a weak spot for him, but sadly this is true most of the time. Some of his books are exempt of this though (such as the one on Henry Kissinger)

>>9530391
dribble*

Please stop posting this man and Peterson

>>9530397
>t. never read Jung

>>9530361
please, you wouldn't even know who he is if it wasn't for him speaking out against the trans bill

>>9530440
It's a catch-22 to be sure, but his talk on psychology is much more interesting and is the bulk of what his videos are on.

>>9530403

I like him too. I just think a fair evaluation of his writing includes that criticism.

>>9530755
Good to hear, I feel that the opinions regarding him (including his writing of course) are way too black and white.

>>9530076
He has a point. Many of the top republicans know that climate change is a serious threat, but choose to publicly deny it. What kind of morals are that? This is indeed a great risk to civilization.

He's great. Definately a populist, but great.
>Acknowledges diferences in IQ in race
>Acknowledges that free will doesnt exist
>Vegan

B A S E D

>>9530972
>Acknowledges diferences in IQ in race
Who doesn't? It's been tested. The debate is on whether people in Africa score lower due to socio-economic differences or due to genetic differences. Does Harris actually say that black people are genetically less smart than white people?

File: 1494021604006.gif (498KB, 450x288px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 450x288px

He is a completely innocuous, boringly inconsistent blowhard.

His fanboys are rabid proselytes that should be put down to save the species.

>>9530403
>>9530755
>>9530814
Hitchens was clearly the superior member of the New Atheists. The guy actually could write.

>>9529618
>He failed miserably to demonstrate his point to Chomsky.
He set out to show that intent matters with respect to ethics, which he did. Saying there is a difference between someone who intentionally stabbed you and someone who did by accident is not being dishonest.

Chomsky could have gone into how "accidental" the collateral damage the US army does is, but he fucked up. He did go towards things like the US funding ISIS, and indirectly but with no qualms about providing the logistics for a genocidal group (that also engages in racial extermination by their own accord). Chomsky is a fucking idiot.

>He couldn't even have a honest debate with Ben Afleck for fuck sake
Why is religious fundamentalism bad? Following the texts of your holy book can only be bad if there's fucked stuff in your holy book. Warfare and genocide of non-believers is a central theme in the spread of Islam by Mohammed in a way that isn't the case with Jesus. Jesus did give quite a bit of leeway for either with is reaffirmation of the Old Testament, but you don't get explicit instruction and rules for it's engagement.

>>9531169

HOW DO YOU INTENTIONALLY STAB SOMEONE IF YOU LACK A WILL TO STAB

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WILL AND INTENTION

WHY IS THAT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO AFFIRM THE LATTER AND DENY THE FORMER

SEEMS LIKE A BIT OF FUCKING EQUIVOCATION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>9531169
Yes Harris showed that intent matters, with his 'thought experiment', treating Chomsky like a five year old. However, Chomsky never said that it didn't matter. In fact Chomsky, stated three times that the intent of the US was worse.
"Apologists may appeal to undetectable humanitarian intentions, but the fact is that the bombing was taken in exactly the way I described in the earlier publication which dealt the question of intentions in this case, the question that you claimed falsely that I ignored: to repeat, it just didn’t matter if lots of people are killed in a poor African country, just as we don’t care if we kill ants when we walk down the street. On moral grounds, that is arguably even worse than murder, which at least recognizes that the victim is human."

Either you can't read just like Harris can't, or you never read the email exchange.

>>9531247

Little ironic that if there's was empirical sample that invalidated Chomsky's notion of 'Cartesian common sense' it would be Sam fucking Harris.

>>9527092
>>9527186
>>9529641
>>9529401

im pretty sure its Reddit users that just copy Sam Harris's world view

>>9530991
>have affluent white families adopt black children
>they still score lower
hmm

>>9527083
wtf is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs

>>9527083
he has no original ideas and he's completely empty

>>9531169
>Saying there is a difference between someone who intentionally stabbed you and someone who did by accident is not being dishonest

Yeah and his "thought experiment" compellty ignores important factors such as Bill probably knew the damage this was going to cause and didn't bother to double check the intel, something that Chomsky has spoken about before.

>He did go towards things like the US funding ISIS, and indirectly but with no qualms about providing the logistics for a genocidal group

Is this that "the gentle giant who accidentally steps on things but is trying to his best for the whole world" that Sam was talking about? Because if so that's a massive fuck up and had little to do with saving the world.

>Warfare and genocide of non-believers
That never happened with Mohammed though. he specifically says not to kill unbelievers. Thats why conversions were largely due to avoiding the jizya tax they enforced. The caliph's got violent when tribes didn't play ball and call them the next leaders.

But I'm talking specifically about naive (or maybe dishonest) he is about the U.S. role in the war on terror. He's seriously suggests that the U.S. is TOO SOFT on Islamic terrorism despite bombing seven countries simultaneously. And he's proven wrong immediately after this "debate" when Obama attacked ISIS.

What planet is this guy on?

Granted Ben is also correct in that he's a racist. He doesn't shit about Islam. He thinks Muslims are this amorphous brown mass and pretty much refuses to acknowledge that this kind of terrorism is largely related to ethnic-nationalism. he has never answered critics regarding why we don't see this sort of thing in Asian countries i.e. the place where a majority of Muslims live. In fact, when we do see it in Asian countries its perpetuated by Hindus, Buddhists and China. When it is committed by Muslims its normally localised in Pakistan. And yet he never argued for the restriction on travel from these countries.

Then he goes on about M-MUH REFORM which didn't even have anything to do with the changes in Western countries, that was the Enlightenment. That was the enlightenment. And despite that he still wrote a book about how bad religion is despite these changes. Which is? Is it fundamentally flawed or is it sufficiently "reformed"?

>>9532173
>Thats why conversions were largely due to avoiding the jizya tax
>not coercion to drop identity and ethnicity

>>9532173
>implying sunni islam isnt a thorn in all of humanities side

>>9529375
wow, such freedom, a multitude of threads about the same meme personalities day after day.

You redditors have ravaged this board.
Fuck pol for making this site popular

>>9532173
If this is what it's come down to and people refuse to place themselves somewhere along the continuum of the two extremes, I'll take American exceptionalism and apologetics for interventionism over your Islamist apologetics.

I would rather people like you refine their perspective so that I'm not forced to claim to have to choose between the two. Thank you.

>>9532645
>I would rather people like you refine their perspective so that I'm not forced to claim to have to choose between the two
That's fine, but Sam absolutely does not lie somewhere in the middle.

>Islamist apologetics
Facts aren't apologetics and delusional paranoia is not a love of exceptionalism.

I don't care for any religion but they all have the equal potential for violence. The point is to combat this issues holistically focusing on the material causes. Feeding the Otherness of Islam and not even engaging properly with these ideas won't fix the problem. As we've seen, trying that then bombing the result only makes things worse.

>>9532186
Damn the calpihs must have been pretty smart, using reverse psychology to coerce conquered subjects into converting to Islam to avoid paying a tax.

Harris, Musk and Dawkins: Reddit's Big 3

The Chomsky "debate" has already been mentioned. But there's another one, debate or I don't know what, basically Ben Stiller had this opinion about immigration or something and then this other guy responds to sam harris arguments and obviously destroys him since harris can never actually play the game. I can't find it, not like it's important, in the end my point is that he is unable to actually engage in philosophical discourse with actual, proper, academic philosophers. He always falls short of actually being able to stay within the lines of the "debate", he fails to pick up where the other people left the idea and develop it further or give a counterargument directly related to it. He comes with his ideas, lays them, and says "I won this debate", completely missing the point that it's not about "winning" or being "right" but rather trying, along with the other people involved, to come to a conclusion or elaborate more questions within/about that topic and keep evolving (or decide that the topic is trivial and throw it in the bin). It was especially clear in the Chomsky interchange... then he went and said something like "we couldn't even begin to debate".

Remember those interviews by the al-jizzera guy to Zizek? Where the dumbass interviewer is just completely missing the point every time, and Zizek grows more and more frustrated? Sam Harris is that, the obnoxious, oblivious attentionwhore, that just HAS to be right.

>>9532668
There is such a thing as Islamic exceptionalism. Islamic scriptures, unlike any other Abrahamic scripture are taken to be the speech of god. Couple that with the historical context of Muhammad and you get a very special sort of thing.

And you are conducting apologetics. You are saying there is no relation between Isalm and terrorism or Islamic infighting. This is madness.

>I don't care for any religion but they all have the equal potential for violence.
This is not true. I don't care for historical heuristics or polemics for when it might have been true, but it's simply false today.

Listen mate, I condemn the West's interventions just as much as the next twenty-something who attaches their entire identity to spergy outrage over our foreign policy, but I think undoing our support for various dictatorships in the MIddle East should start with condemning a few of our Saudi and Qatari allies, maybe supporting Kurdish resistance which will surely upset some of our Turkish friends, and ultimately intervening divorced from self-interest, with boots on the ground when things get out of hand (Halabja chemical attack would have warranted such an intervention in my view). But claiming to know so little about what is right and spectating over various other actors fighting over the Middle East at the cost of its people is madness.

I also have a problem with the spread of Islamic demographics in Europe, since no matter how sophisticated and moderate you think some Muslims are, they all subscribe to Islamic colonialism through marriage restrictions on women. I do not want my childrent o grow up in a predominantly muslim Europe, which will be the case unless we adjust immigration policies.

How are any of these views controversial to the point where I can be construed to be 'the bad guy' by some? How did we get to such a point?

>>9529611
goddamn i love zizek

>>9532807
>unlike any other Abrahamic scripture
There is a thread on THIS VERY BOARD where some people are arguing that Moses what was necessary to correct the delusions of heretics and non-believers through violence. Again, facts aren't apologetics.

>You are saying there is no relation between Islam and terrorism or Islamic infighting
Not necessarily. I demonstrated that material factors have
a far greater impact on the creation of ethno-nationalist terrorism. The specific brand of Islam certainly helps (see the Boston Bombers) but in an ideal world where Islam was absent, you would still have terrorism if these factors existed (see the Tamil Tigers).

Why don't you want to solve the problem? Its like reverse SJWism where apparently the solution to economic and class based issues is less white people. Here no Islam means terrorism. Its delusional.

>This is not true. I don't care for historical heuristics or polemics for when it might have been true
Then how come people like Sam keep insisting on such heursitics and try and make the argument Islam is both

A) A monolith and
B) been the same for the last 1300 years waging the war on western culture?

The "LE RELIGION OF PEACE XXXXD" shit comes as a reaction to the above perspective.

>start with condemning a few of our Saudi and Qatari allies, maybe supporting Kurdish resistance which will surely upset some of our Turkish friends, and ultimately intervening divorced from self-interest, with boots on the ground when things get out of hand (Halabja chemical attack would have warranted such an intervention in my view)
Sounds reasonable, I'm in.

>since no matter how sophisticated and moderate you think some Muslims are, they all subscribe to Islamic colonialism through marriage restrictions on women
Then how about not having that be a legal thing? And why would these practices consist over the course of a few generations when they haven't for moth ethnic groups that are properly assimilated? We don't have that in Australia.

>where I can be construed to be 'the bad guy' by some?
No, why would you think that? I just think you are wrong.

>How did we get to such a point?
Stop playing the victim.

>>9532086
>completely empty
duh, he enlightened and seen the Truth of no self.

He's successful despite majoring in philosophy and it makes all the unemployed phil. majors here absolutely mad with envy.

See also that Alain de Button guy.

>>9529513
Embarrassing post.

>>9532173
>That never happened with Mohammed though. he specifically says not to kill unbelievers

yet he did so otherwise

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

>muh facts!

>>9532844
>There is a thread on THIS VERY BOARD where some people are arguing that Moses what was necessary to correct the delusions of heretics and non-believers through violence. Again, facts aren't apologetics.
That may be so, but you haven't addressed my point about Islamic exceptionalism due to its unique view of its scriptures. You have however, proceeded to give an unrelated example of how the other two Abrahamic religions can justify violence. What? I am not here to defend either, but if I have to choose I'll take a the new testament and Christian reading of the Old Testamen over the Quran and the Torah any day. They are not the same and thei compatibility with Western value is not the same.

>your monolith point

Haven't listened to Harris enough to see whether he does this, but from the little I've heard he doesn't construe Islam as a monolith. The problem is that Islam is exceptional in ways which make it exclusively worse than Christianity for instance - my point about the Quran being the speech of god remains; in a literalist Muhammad was no Jesus; interpretations are at the whims of Imams.

>Then how about not having that be a legal thing?
What? It doesn't have to be. Increase the number of muslim women and you get more muslims. A muslim woman will not mary a non-muslim. There is no ''assimilation'' mate.

>>9530991
>Who doesn't?
James Watson got banned from speaking at another uni recently.

>>9532844
>Then how come people like Sam keep insisting on such heursitics and try and make the argument Islam is both
>A) A monolith and
>B) been the same for the last 1300 years waging the war on western culture?

He literally said the opposite of this. He classifies Islam into an overlapping venn diagram of non-religious, moderate and extreme muslims. His strategy is to empower the former 2 and space out the extreme fringes.

>>9532878
>I claimed didn't kill unbelievers
>the caliph's mainly killed people for political reasons, like making tribal leaders play ball
>gives me a list of political assassinations proving my point
>this apparently is exactly the same thing as Moses and Samson massacring entire villages

MUH LITERACY

>>9532879
>due to its unique view of its scriptures
Which doesn't exist because I have demonstrated the exact opposite and you can click over and find examples of living Christians thinking that it was justified.

Either give me examples that make Quran more exceptionally violent or explain why using Islamic theology.

>proceeded to give an unrelated example of how the other two Abrahamic religions can justify violence
>Islam is unique in this regard even though its clearly not unique in this regard because your examples

Are you actually retarded?

>but from the little I've heard he doesn't construe Islam as a monolith
And I have given you many examples that Sam didn't consider in his broad brushstrokes of how Muslims behave all the same.

>There is no ''assimilation'' mate.
Why not? I've seen plenty examples of assimilation of peoples from all cultures, including Islam.

>>9532897
That is not entirely accurate. From what I've read, in some circumstances I he basically accuses moderate Muslims of practising imperfect forms of Islam and basically one theology class away from becoming extremists.

In other cases he argues Islam hasn't developed or changed AT ALL and so its different from Christianity because of lack of the Enlightenment (which he calls the Reform).

I can't find them right now sorry.

>>9532807
>>9532844
>supporting Kurdish resistance to Turkey

American imperialism down to a T. Turkey is a sovereign nation and an ally to United States and fought beside Americans in the Korean War. You are going to stab her in the back because you learned from the internet that the Kurds were oppressed by the Turks? You are in agreement with detaching the region from secular rule by a regional power and giving it to actual fundamentalist tribalists who do honor killings and child brides because?

This degenerate globalist way of thinking is the cause of all the ills in the world. Nations aren't American toys.

>>9532918
> I have demonstrated the exact opposite
nope. Islam is the only Abrahamic religion that views its scripture not only as the word of god, but as the speech of god. This is exclusively Islamic. The potential for violence is greater precisely because of this.

>Sam didn't consider in his broad brushstrokes of how Muslims behave all the same.
not true

Why are you defending Islam mate?

>>9532930
kek, I was supporting kurdish resistance to Isis, but yes, as a result, empowering them militarily or economically wouldn't make our Turkish allies happy.

>>9532934
if your claims are true why didn't Islam had these problems in the 17th century? 18th century? 19th century? When the Brits drew Middle Eastern borders in fucking England after World War 2 and after Israel was founded and after the Islamic revolutions of the 1970s then we find the myth of 72 virgins.

>>9532953
world war 1`

>>9532934
>Islam is the only Abrahamic religion that views its scripture not only as the word of god
Oh thats what you meant. Sorry I made the mistake.

>The potential for violence is greater precisely because of this
And God himself in these stories commanded Moses and Samson to kill all these non-believers. Are you saying that they misinterpreted what he said or what happened?

>not true
Prove that he didn't. I've already shown where he has failed.

>Why are you defending Islam mate?
Facts aren't apologetics. I'd rather solve the problem then feed easy paranoia just because it makes me feel better.

>>9532953
>why didn't Islam had these problems in the 17th century? 18th century? 19th century?

It did. Shia-Sunni infighting started soon after the death of Muhammad. Islamic colonialism was theologically motivated and so were other atrocities such as slavery.

I'm done talking to you as I don't think there's anything either of us has to gain from this conversation. You're delusional.

>>9532918
>That is not entirely accurate. From what I've read, in some circumstances I he basically accuses moderate Muslims of practising imperfect forms of Islam and basically one theology class away from becoming extremists.

The moderates don't actually practice bare Islam as prescribed in the quran, this is fact. That doesn't mean he treats them as a monolith. He just says there are fundamental ideas common to most (if not all) muslims, ideas held by even the least religious muslim, that are dangerous and anti-liberal. He does the same for christians on the gay question. Pointing out a common thread doesn't not equate to characterizing it as a monolith.

>>9532963

you are right. when the Western Man does it is Bringing Civilization. when the Muslim Man does it is Savagery.

File: massacre-730387.jpg (145KB, 435x490px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 435x490px

>>9532963
>Shia-Sunni infighting started soon after the death of Muhammad
Kind of reminds me of another infighting (pic related). But I think anon was referring to 72 virgins and suicide fighters.

>Islamic colonialism was theologically motivated and so were other atrocities such as slavery
Oh really? Where is that in the Quran because thats a new one to me.

>>9532970
does not*

>>9532959
>And God himself in these stories commanded Moses and Samson to kill all these non-believers. Are you saying that they misinterpreted what he said or what happened?
I'm have no interest in defending scriptures. If you want apologetics I'm sure a Christian reading of the Old Testament would shed some light on your frowns. I won't pretend I am qualified to impart on you such a reading.

>Prove that he didn't. I've already shown where he has failed.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425169/liberal-atheist-and-liberal-muslim-discuss-problems-contemporary-islam-brian-stewart
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/who-are-the-moderate-muslims

He does not construe them as the same. He acknowledges the gap between professed belief and actual belief that leads to action and agrees that it is negotiated differently by fundamentalists, traditionalists and moderates.

>Facts aren't apologetics. I'd rather solve the problem then feed easy paranoia just because it makes me feel better.

The problem is Islam and the West's intervention. You are saying Islam is inherently non-violent, or that Islam does not inform on terrorism and Islamism. This is delusional apologetics.

>>9532972
you are right. when the Muslim Man does it is Bringing Civilization. when the Western Man does it is Savagery.

>>9532970
>The moderates don't actually practice bare Islam as prescribed in the quran
This is true (although he still tries to imply that the Quran itself has these materials). The sheer arrogance though, that he presumes he can comment on what is considered proper Islamic practice and apply it to today's Muslims, is staggering and its more pseud than this board's entire history.

>That doesn't mean he treats them as a monolith
As I pointed out before he doesn't even consider how Islam is practiced in Asian countries and he doesn't even consider how its practised in every Middle Eastern country. He ignores Muslim commentators that say that its not at all relevant to their views. He absolutely treats the entire Muslim community as a monolith.

If what he said was true, why is there a diversity in the application of Sharia law? And why doesn't every Muslim country practice it?

>>9532983
>I'm have no interest in defending scriptures
Well shiiiiieeeet, I guess we are going to have to conclude the scripture is not inherently more violent. This means Sam is wrong.

>He does not construe them as the same. He acknowledges the gap between professed belief and actual belief that leads to action and agrees that it is negotiated differently by fundamentalists, traditionalists and moderates.
Yeah but all 1.3 billions, all throughout history and all over the world? I get that no group of people is given this courtesy, and certainly not by Muslims, but that doesn't mean that he is correct.

>The problem is Islam and the West's intervention
I agree.

>You are saying Islam is inherently non-violent
Thats fine, you don't have to read but don't pretend that you can on this board.

>>9532984
Literally no Westerners have said this.

>>9532973
>Kind of reminds me of another infighting (pic related)

Sure, but what's that got to do with anything? I am not defending Christianity, although the infighting there was not theologically motivated.

>Oh really? Where is that in the Quran because thats a new one to me.
“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” Quran (2:191-193)
“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Quran (2:216)
“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority” Quran (3:151)
“Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”Quran (4:74)
“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”Quran (4:89)

There are also the hadiths and the example of Muhammed which is vile, unless historically contextualised.

Shall I go on?

>>9532984

no man, i don't think colonization of the Americas and Africa and the slaughter of the natives and the heathens as a bad thing at all. i don't begrudge the Christians the crusades either. it is all in our Greek and Roman heritage.

it's the double standard of conquest between whites and civilized non-whites i have an objection to.

>t. Judge Holden

>>9533001
>Well shiiiiieeeet, I guess we are going to have to conclude the scripture is not inherently more violent. This means Sam is wrong.
Nope, we can safely conclude that out of the three Abrahamic religionsa and their correspondic scriptures, Christianity is the least violent - theologically at least.

>>9532988
>The sheer arrogance though, that he presumes he can comment on what is considered proper Islamic practice and apply it to today's Muslims, is staggering and its more pseud than this board's entire history.

why can't he do that? Because he isn't a muslim? Do you know whats proper islamic practice? I mean you must right, since you object to his simple comment about how moderates don't follow the quran to the last jot.

>As I pointed out before he doesn't even consider how Islam is practiced in Asian countries and he doesn't even consider how its practised in every Middle Eastern country. He ignores Muslim commentators that say that its not at all relevant to their views. He absolutely treats the entire Muslim community as a monolith.

You think he doesn't know how islam is practised in the east? This is literally what the other hack Reza Aslan attacked him for. Are you aware that Indonesia is trying to jail a politician for blasphemy? Or that Malaysians are repeatedly trying to establish 'hudud', a form of islamic law?

Again pointing out a common thread =! monolith

>If what he said was true, why is there a diversity in the application of Sharia law? And why doesn't every Muslim country practice it?

He never denied there is diversity among muslims. He literally says there are moderates, traditionalist and extremist. This is the third time saying this, it is not hard to grasp.

>>9533004
>Sure, but what's that got to do with anything?
Sam's wrong

>although the infighting there was not theologically motivated
Yes it was. Martin Luther was telling the direct descendant of the Apolitisitc tradition established by Jesus to fuck off.

And if you don't consider that theological in nature then neither was Sunni/Shia split as it was due to tribal politics. Do you know the history of the split?

>There are also the hadiths and the example of Muhammed which is vile, unless historically contextualised.
And none of those necessarily inform colonialism but they do inform violence and conquest. Im pretty sure we can look to material factors for that i.e. they want money and are happy to sell people for it.

Evidently these do describe what we talked about earlier where there is no need to oppress or destroy unbelievers so long as Islam practitioners are safe as seen in "and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah".

They take over? All you gotta do is pay a jizya tax and its fine. None of these say get ready to bomb a hospital for sweet virgin puss.

>>9533010
>it's the double standard of conquest between whites and civilized non-whites i have an objection to.
And so you should, even though there are distinctions to be made - not to say that they absolve anyone of guilt.

The problem with Islam anon, is that it is just as much a political ideology as it is theology and doctrine. This is an issue and people are right not to want its influence to grow in the West.

>>9533026

>This is an issue and people are right not to want its influence to grow in the West.

i am in complete agreement with this.

>>9533025
okay, I have provided you with texts that link Islamic theology to violence. What you proceeded to do was apologetics mate. I'm done.

>>9533016
>Christianity is the least violent - theologically at least.


>>9533021
>why can't he do that? Because he isn't a muslim?
I guess I should just judge every book that I've never read or understood like the pseuds on this board. Plato is a fascist and Finnegan's Wake is for idiots XXXDDD

You understand right why you would want to ask someone who actually studied Islamic history and theology right? Instead of just taking out of context quotes?

> I mean you must right, since you object to his simple comment about how moderates don't follow the quran to the last jot.
I agreed with him on that point.

>You think he doesn't know how islam is practised in the east?
He doesn't even know how fucking Buddhism is practiced in the east.

>Are you aware that Indonesia is trying to jail a politician for blasphemy?
That's a funny looking Sharia Law, I thought it meant to involve public executions?

>Or that Malaysians are repeatedly trying to establish 'hudud', a form of islamic law?
So why haven't they been successful?

>He literally says there are moderates, traditionalist and extremist
That's not really diversity. You given three examples of a diverse application in Islamic politics. More than I've seen him consider.

>>9533037
>i'm done
>fourth time he's said this

Lmao

>>9533040
>You understand right why you would want to ask someone who actually studied Islamic history and theology right? Instead of just taking out of context quotes?

ok you are just parroting Reza Aslan talking points at this point, i'm done with you.

I used to think it was because he writes pop-philosophy, but based on this thread, it seems like /lit/ is triggered by the fact that he's willing to point out that religion in general, and Islam in particular, are the cause of massive amounts of violence, war, and oppression.

/lit/ seems to think that Islam is about peace, equality, and liberal values and that Harris is a big racist meanie. I mean he's clear a centre-left liberal, but /lit/ acts like he's a fucking neocon.

>>9533063
>tips fedora

>>9533066
t. /pol/tard from 2012

>jewish
>promotes conspiracy theories about russia and trump
>think its okay to bomb countries and kill hundreds of thousands if you had "good intentions"

>>9533066
yeah man, I pointed out that religion does indeed have detrimental social and moral consequences - I'm so autistic lol. Oh yeah... And Islam is super awesome and promotes peace and freedom and liberty, and the west and America areway mire evil. Oh, and even though the Quran is explicitly violent and way more Muslims openly support violence and oppression, that point is irrelevant because not all Muslims hold the same exact beliefs.

File: 1493260932644.png (574KB, 534x528px)

574KB, 534x528px

>>9533110
you sound like a narcissist, it's more about you and your opinions than what people are discussing

t. not the other guy

File: 1355678015300.jpg (64KB, 441x705px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 441x705px

>>9533110
>the Quran is explicitly violent
>and way more Muslims openly support violence and oppression

File: beat it.jpg (53KB, 692x488px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 692x488px

>>9533124

>2017
>He still doesn't acknowledge that Islam is uniquely terrible

>>9533124
Why do you fuckers assume violence is always a vice.

File: 1403974319061.jpg (35KB, 458x319px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 458x319px

>>9533124
>islam is the religion of peace
>muslims are peaceful beings who just want to be left alone

>>9533117
I nade one post - the one you replied to - and I dont really see how its narcissistic. I was pointing out the idiocy of the whole fedora ad hominem thats used against people whenever they say anything even mildly crotocal if religion.

>>9533124
There are numerous passages of the Quran that encourage violence and are almost identical to Leviticus in their general theme. Similarly, surveys of the Muslim population indicate that large numbers of Muslims support violence towards gays, adulterers, atheists, etc. You literally have no argument.

>>9533144
>atheism

when will they learn?

>>9533144
Why did you say "I'm so autistic lol"? Seemed like you were referring to yourself and not using it as a figure of speech.

>>9530450
not a catch-22, as usual.

>>9527083
I personally don't hate the guy, but he can sometimes be a bit pretentious when it comes religion and politics. He's a clear thinker with limitations regarding the complexities of society and the people with it. He's always chasing his own tail down his "think critically" ideologies. His disdain for people who are not on the same brain-waves as him is counterproductive to his mission of understanding and debating others fairly without elitist intellectual biases.

File: seal.png (55KB, 177x166px)

55KB, 177x166px

>>9529611
>Gets into pointless arguments to make his sub-human fan base like him more
>>9531247

God, the "exchange" with Chomsky was so terrible.

>mfw that entire conversation

>>9530440
his existentialist lectures where posted more than once here on /lit/ before the whole pronoun bill fiasco

>>9533235
Oh really? I missed it...

>>9533279
https://warosu.org/lit/?search_op=all&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=old&search_del=dontcare&offset=0&ghost=yes&search_res=post&task=search2&search_capcode=all&search_text=Jordan%20Peterson

>>9533315
Thanks senpai

>>9532892
He said that it's due to genetic differences. That's indeed controversial.
Like I said, there is no debate on whether African countries score lower on IQ tests. The debate is on what the reason for this. Watson says it's due to genetic differences, which is in my opinion very offensive, especially considering the lack of good data for this.

>>9533315
sad that before the pronoun bullshit he wasn't popular enough to get discussed properly and now that he is every thread about him inevitably spirals into pol and leftypol throwing shit at each other

>>9530082
If I remember right he was describing taking MDMA with his friend.

>>9532934
>The potential for violence is greater precisely because of this.

How so? Also, are you implying there is something wrong with violence?

>>9532963
>slavery
>atrocity

Kys, libtard

>>9533016
>Christianity is the least violent

Then why are Christians infinitely more violent than both Jews and Muslims combined?

>>9533144
>surveys of the Muslim population indicate that large numbers of Muslims support violence towards gays, adulterers, atheists, etc.

Why would anyone NOT support violence towards gays, adulterers and atheists?

He writes shitty books primarily for money. He espouses shitty ideas primarily for money.

Most importantly, he has no self doubt.

>>9532853
Oh so he's delusional too? Big surprise!

>>9529375
Do you really think you have freedom of speech here? If there were true freedom of speech on 4chan we would be swimming in spam.

Freedom of speech is only valuable as an overall rule. It does not and should not apply to forums, image boards or social media.

I am Sam Harris. I am right. About everything. You've missed what I've seen. Let me prove this by speaking very calmly and smugly. Also, I'm enlightened.

>>9533841
Of course it's partly genetic. Literally everything is.

>>9527083
Hater will be hated.


He think he is smart..... Lol... If he only knew

>>9532892
Yeah but that man's a fucking kook, he sold his nobel prize, goes around saying we could cure homosexuality through genetic modification, etc...

>>9527083
He's an atheist scientist who thinks moral values can be determined scientifically, among other things, despite having no knowledge of philosophy. The first two alone make him hate-worthy.

>>9530302
Not bad, Alex.

>>9530302
>and really does pussy out in critiques of Islam and Judaism (he's very pro Israel, shocking),
supporting Israel is indefensible but he is on the record saying some slanderous shit against American muslims, how most of them support terrorists or would vote to kill homosexuals given the chance, give the man SOME credit

>>9536431
>no knowledge of philosophy

Yeah just a degree in it from fucking Stanford. Where's your degree from since you obviously know so much philosophy?

>>9527083

How can't I? He looks like the fucking Ben Stiller.

Sometimes Harris says some really stupid shit. Like that time he said Luke 19 was Jesus commanding his followers to kill unbelievers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENtlW-LEqu8

>>9527083
Reading Waking Up right now. It's an incontrovertibly great book tbqh

>>9538043
Wow, I never know he said that. Has he retracted the statement?

>>9529449
hahah i heard sam softly purring that passage in my ear so clearly.

>>9529519
>He was completely wrong on the Trump stuff
Nice bait.

>>9538108
Actual long-time dzogchen masters and practitioners are critical as fuck of that book. He gets so much wrong.

>>9535620
Probably because snowniggers were/are/always will be savages.

>>9527083
1. Since getting his PhD, he has conducted no scientific research.
2. Since getting his PhD, he has taught no university/college courses in neuroscience.
3. Since getting his PhD, he has devoted his efforts to his anti-religious think tank and publishing books, such as the one on using drugs and meditation to discover truths about our reality.
4. He received his PhD through partial funding from his own atheist organization.
5. He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.
6. His PhD thesis was about how science can determine what is right and wrong and he turned it into a book for sale.
7. Since publishing his thesis/book, Harris has yet to use science to resolve a single moral dispute.

>>9538691

Not that I know of. I don't follow him closely so he may have. I'd be curious to see how he could even begin to explain that bad of a fuckup. That was Reza Aslan tier.

>>9539196
The book isn't about promoting Buddhism per se, it's about explaining the practice of mindfulness separate from its religious context

>>9539441
Well he did do his undergrad in philosophy so he's technically doing what he was suppose to do.

>>9540580

His PhD, on which he bases his public credibility (or credulity), is in 'neuroscience', and the social cache that one inherits with the designator and title 'scientist'. Yet he didn't do any 'real science' to earn his degree, nor has he done any since acquiring it. So by what right does he have claim to the title?

>>9539441
>5. He didn’t do any of the experiments for his own thesis work.

isn't that the kind of thing that is supposed to prevent you from getting a PhD?

>>9540801
Well he got the title from a respectable university so he obviously did earn it. Maybe he helps him to become a better philosopher cause quite frankly any philosopher who don't know a little bit about science and mathematics isn't worth shit. What's the fucking point of talking about metaphysics if you don't know at least an elementary level of actual physics.

File: 1468645345069.jpg (54KB, 589x590px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 589x590px

>>9541639

>>9541547
>>9541639
Apparently his PhD was funded by a foundation that later turned into Atheist Alliance or something.

>Maybe he helps him to become a better philosopher
But if he doesn't actually do any research and just pretends that he is a smart, materialist, super modern thinker then its dishonest. That's assuming he earned his PhD

>>9537068
>Where's your degree from since you obviously know so much philosophy?
Argument of authority doesn't work in philosophy bud.

>>9536473
>how most of them support terrorists or would vote to kill homosexuals given the chance, give the man SOME credit
Found the Ben Stiller supporter. Anyone can autistically rant about Muslims, that doesn't make you an intellectual. Doing it better than others just makes you a sophist.

>>9541668
You have to judge him based on what he has written. And also pathetic he looks, how bent his back is and how much white hair he has. He's still young and fit. Give him a decade or two and you'll be sucking his dick like you do all the other philosopher's you like because you faggots always fall for the Gandalf archetype.

>>9541688
I honestly have no idea what this means, try again. This time with English.

>>9541688

damn

i have never seen someone this mad over their boyfriend being disrespected on the chons

sad!

File: 42a.jpg (58KB, 650x429px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 650x429px

>Religion is the root of all evil
>"Well what about these atheist regimes that killed a bunch of people?"
>Well they didn't have freedom of expression but if people followed my ideas there would be an atheist utopia
>Also you can derive an ought from an is

>>9541835
Also
>Gee looks like I'm in a debate, do I
>A: Try and direct the debate to let me better understand the persons ideas while allowing my audience to do the same?
>B: Get into a highly autistic argument over a singular point for hours until I "win"?

He's such an insufferable Reddit fuckboy.

File: accrediteddegreemorevaluablethanforprofit.png (12KB, 650x163px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 650x163px

>>9541639
>he got the title from a respectable university so he obviously did earn it
sure did

>>9527083
Because they have to see his smug jew face on /lit/ every day.
He looks like he's just sold someone a defective watch.

>>9541835
>"Well what about these atheist regimes that killed a bunch of people?"
In the name of atheism? Does atheism PREACH a moral system (or anything)?

>>9543018
>its only evil if you add the "in the name of god" to your shitty actions

>>9543029
It was evil, but the cause was the regime itself (which had its own DOGMATIC ideology). Atheism had nothing to do with it.

>>9541835
you also forgot hes a determinist, and yet blames the already pre-ordained pathology on cultural influence

>>9543041
>those events were evil, but its the DOGMATIC ideology of the clergy, religion and faith has nothing to do with it

>>9543077
Exactly, the dogmatic ideology in this case is religion, it's this dogmatic ideology that sometimes justifies acts of evil in its holy books, which usually are the main source of the ideology. When talking about the ideology of the atheist regimes that have done evil acts, the ideology is NOT atheism, but a different one, a version of communism, whatever North Korea's ideology is, and so on; never atheism itself, because atheism is not an ideology, simply a rejection (not the absolute denial either) of a specific dogma.

>>9529449
this was great.

>>9543093

San Harris has advocated sending religious people to reeducation camps.

>>9543322
I'm not defending Sam Harris (although you need to back that claim, I don't remember reading that anywhere), I'm simply saying atheism can't be blamed for the evil acts of regimes such as Stalin's, the same way Islam can be blamed for ISIS' acts, or Catholicism (at least partially) for the sexism and homophobia in South America.

>>9543348
>pseud speaks

>>9543384
Present arguments.

File: 1495278208032.jpg (189KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x683px

>>9529263

>You could easily imagine a world where authoritarian Islamists held power and a pro-Jihad Harris explaining calmly how killing infidels isn't as wrong as killing muslims.

I couldn't, though. How the fuck could a world based on secular values be compared to a world based on Islamic ones? What a brain-dead comparison.

>>9529519

>He is completely wrong on science can solve moral claims.

When does he make that claim? He takes it as axiomatic that wellbeing is desired by all, and that it's easier to reach it via reasonable inquiry than dogmatic adherence to bad ideas. (see: The Religion of Peace).

>He was completely wrong on the Trump stuff.

No, but he was wrong to support Hillary over him.

>He is completely wrong on the religion debate.

True, he doesn't understand religion. I'm not sure he even understands how people work. I feel sad for his daughter.

>>9529611

>Is a racist that swallowed american exceptionalism memes

[citation needed]

When has he ever been pro-America specifically? He would be in favor of any secular government and reason-driven government, even if that happened to be in Qatar or Siberia. The fact that America happens to meet a part of his ideals doesn't make him an American imperialist, you cockroach.

>but when did buddhists ever hurt anyone? :(
>what do you mean there are tonnes of Hindu and Buddhist terrorist acts? No i don't think its related to material conditions

Again, when did he ever say this? He's always said that Buddhism is just like any other religion. He doesn't defend Buddhism. He just thinks that mindful meditation is a good idea to extract from it. He isn't a fucking Buddhist, mong.


The only real reason to hate him is because he doesn't give a fuck about anything he says. He has proven time and time again that the only thing he's truly interested in is star power. I'm pretty sure Waking Up is nothing more than a pathetic attempt for him to exonerate himself for all his idiotic displays. And notice how the only time he ever picks on people is when they're either: a) completely insignificant and easily destroyed, or b) so huge that even attacking them is worthwhile because you'll get people's attention.

He is, quite literally, an attention whore. That's all he's ever been.

>>9543528

>When does he make that claim?

I'm the title of his book? The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

>He takes it as axiomatic that wellbeing is desired by all

Then defines 'well-being' along naive utilitarian terms, without justification.

>>9543561

>I'm the title of his book?

Wew.

>Then defines 'well-being' along naive utilitarian terms, without justification.

Yes, because plenty of people enjoy suffering, don't you know. I know so many mentally healthy people that pray for cancer and death.

>>9543528
Do you still prefer Trump over Hillary after all that's happening? Or do you mean he should have supported one of the other candidates?

Why do you say he doesn't understand religion? In which sense?

I'm not being confrontative, just genuinely inquiring.

>>9543630

>Do you still prefer Trump over Hillary after all that's happening?

Yes, because the problem seems systematic. Surely, no system in the world should be so ill-prepared as to collapse and threaten the existence of our species as soon as an idiot is in power. There's no reason at all that any person, let alone one at the head of the strongest power that's ever existed, should be able to call shots however they please. It's like nothing matters in America beyond the presidency, and that's stupid. These alt-right faggots that keep posting the Trump God-Emperor meme aren't wrong. The American presidents are pretty much that, and it's wrong, and it needs to stop.

>Why do you say he doesn't understand religion? In which sense?

I feel Sam's too autistic to understand that people legitimately don't care about what their religion says. The amount of Christians or Muslims that care about their holy books, or the exact rules written therein, are a tiny minority. He presents it as if it's 50% bad and 50% good, and people work on both of that as if they're robots that take the holy books as code for their behavior. Except, people are completely ignorant about the bad, and even theologians find weasel workarounds around the bad. In essence, he's acting as if behavioral problems are legit caused by religious doctrine, and that's dumb.

>>9543574

The most assured and logically consistent route to free everyone from suffering would be to end the source of suffering, which is life itself, or anyway our bodily existence.

>>9543675
I agree the problem is systematic; but what's Trump gonna do about that? I mean, it even seems an impeachment might be possible (which would give us president Pence, God help us).

I think Sam's approach to religion works on the tiny portion of fundamentalists responsible for terrorist acts and equivalent deeds. I agree with you that most people don't have a true grasp of what their religion truly says and they tend to think their own definition of good MUST be what their holy books and church's doctrine endorse; nonetheless, it's very hard to separate the treatment of women, homosexuals, atheists and so on, in the Middle East from Islam. Yes, the region wasn't ruled by fundamentalists (to this extent) some decades ago; but, they do find justification in the texts. Also, which reasons would they have to do such things, besides Islam?

File: 1494824596368 (1).png (243KB, 829x589px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 829x589px

>>9543694

I want you to record what you just said, listen to it, and cringe at your own words. And I'm not just saying that as rhetoric--I mean it. The sooner you grow up the sooner your life will start coming together.

how the fuck is this thread still up

>>9543723

I was not advocating for the destruction of all life, merely pointing out that it is the logical conclusion of negative utilitarianism.

>>9543715
Sams criticism of Christianity is the Christianity a smart 13 year old boy objects to

>>9543727

Harris fags are nothing if not persistent. Ditto his detractors.

>>9543730
Harris does not base "his" moral system only in the avoidance of suffering; but also in the furthering of well-being. Both. Avoidance of suffering takes a higher priority to furthering of well-being; but not enough to make it irrelevant, which would lead to your conclusion.

>>9543732
This is not an argument.

>>9529471
this lol

>>9543759
It is.

>>9531673

The scientist in me hates that you think that proves shit.

Not that the idea of there being a genetic component in intelligence doesn't make sense, but if there is that isn't the way to prove it. Especially when genetics and race don't interplay like that. It goes against what people expect, but two people being black Africans doesn't mean they're closer genetically than the first black guy is to some white as the snow blonde blue eyed American. You've got a fuckload of DNA.

Anyway. If you wanted to do the experiment fair you'd have to have a bunch of wealthy families who adopted kids both black and white and see how the test scores do.

And ideally youd want them to adopt the kids into countries which arent as weird on race as americans get.

I'd say the the extremes of one side being All-Blacks-Are-Evil-And-I-Love-Giving-My-Wife-To-Them-/pol/tards and the other extremes being the whole 'White People Are The Literal Source Of All Of My Problems' pot-smoking """Role-Models""" both sound like they're probably bad for young black development.

>>9543715

>but what's Trump gonna do about that?

I don't know. But either way, if a problem is that pathological, that hard-wired into the system itself, the dam was going to break sooner or later. In some ways, maybe Trump isn't that bad. I mean, the man is a moron. But at least he values self-preservation and is almost entirely transparent. He's an evil that needs to be removed, and the wound has to be cauterized, but I could conceive of a scenario where a far more sinister guy took the reins and did some truly ugly stuff.

>...which reasons would they have to do such things, besides Islam?

Well, look. Here's how I see things. I will grant you that having a bad ideology combined with desperate people invariably leads to them succumbing to it (or better said, relying on it) to keep themselves together. But, again, any other ideology that's as shitty as Islam, whether or not it's religious in nature, would've ended up doing the same. If those guys were preaching some kind of crazed Arabic nationalism, the results wouldn't be identical--but they probably wouldn't be that significantly different, either.

But don't get me wrong on this, I'm by no means saying Islam is good, or even preferable to a healthy and secular society. But there are certain things that I feel need to be understood about this, which Sam just ignores.

For example, is it that atheism and secularism necessarily makes people behave better, or is that such beliefs generally coincide with a higher IQ and healthier frame-of-mind? Or could it also be that a strong belief in something (like a religion) makes one seek to manifest his beliefs outwards, whereas the negative side of the coin within the atheist frame might be self-destruction instead.

I don't have any kind of cohesive way of looking at all of this, and I'm clearly not a professional philosopher. But it just seems so clear that there's more to it than just blaming religion.

I would say that going by all the evidence, it's abundantly clear that happy and healthy people tend to be lawful, spirited, and friendly, regardless of their belief system. That's not to say that belief systems are relative, by any means, just that there's probably a deeper problem here that can't be resolved by erasing Islam out of existence, for example.

>>9543730

And here's something I would like to point out to you: living things want to go on living Everything wants to stay alive and perpetuate itself, unless it's sacrificing itself for its offspring or is damaged in some profound way (like a person with depression).

Confronted by such a self-evident truth that's at the basis of all life that we know of (and likely that we'll ever know of), why exactly would you put the focus on some abstract line of reasoning in a philosophical system that's just waiting to be demolished by a better argument?

>>9543754

Again, he defines well-being along naive utilitarian lines, i.e. as the maximization of 'pleasure'. What 'pleasure' is, exactly, is left ambiguous-- but it must be measurable! Otherwise it wouldn't be compatible with the doctrine of science-derived values. Introducing a maxi-min principle doesn't make up for this weakness.

If the end of ethics is the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of suffering, and if the only valid determination of pleasure and of suffering is one that is measurable, then we take the naximal increase in felicitous stimulation of the nervous system and the maximal decrease of unfelicitous stimulation of the nervous system (of a human subject, presumably) as the end of ethics.

The whole of society should be working toward the creation of machines that will be capable of administering the desired stimuli while protecting the subject from all undesired stimuli.

Perfect little pleasure capsules.

>>9543806

>And here's something I would like to point out to you: living things want to go on living Everything wants to stay alive and perpetuate itself, unless it's sacrificing itself for its offspring or is damaged in some profound way (like a person with depression).

That's a pretty hefty metaphysical claim, the positing of a will that precedes the willing. How might you demonstrate this claim, empirically?

>>9543806
>>9543715

To underscore the religious issue a bit better, here's an allegory (and I hope it's not too retarded).

Picture a person that's eats a steak & salad and another person that's eating a Big Mac. The Big Mac eater ends up dying of a heart attack at fifty, and everyone's saying eating Big Macs killed him.

Would you say that's true? I would say it isn't. There's clearly a distinction between being outright killed by something (like, say, a toxin that has you gushing blood and frothing within seconds) and something that's just less healthy than something else (assuming that ingesting anything at all that keeps you going is healthy).

Certainly, the Big Mac guy would've lived a longer life if he ate better. But at the end of the day, he only happened to exit this one sooner. The other guy is going to die too. Eating a Big Mac every day isn't healthy. But to outright say that "eating Big Macs killed 'im," in my opinion, is totally missing the point, and dishonest.

Likewise with Islam. Is an Islamic state PREFERABLE to free society? Fuck no. But does that mean that everything bad that's happening in the Middle-East and all the actions of terrorists come down to the fact that they're Islamists? Is Islam the true motivator? I would put a resounding "No" to that.

>>9543830

That's only because you're presupposing that any kind of pain would be detrimental and that humans wouldn't care for certain "Higher Goods," like keeping in contact with reality and not being brains hooked up to a pleasure-machine.

>>9543849

Was I making a metaphysical claim? I was explaining to you how animals (and you still are one, mind you) tend to function. You've gone so deep down this rabbit hole of philosophical abstraction that you're forgetting that you inhabit a grounded reality that doesn't mirror your abstractions or meet them directly.

>How might you demonstrate this claim, empirically?

You mean, the fact that every creature has this programmed code of behavior that's the theory we have (and use, because it's correct) for why life perpetuated, evolved, and withstood the test of time in the first place? Or do you just mean that you would like to see the actual neuroscience behind why animals want to stay alive and make babies?

>>9543874
>That's only because you're presupposing that any kind of pain would be detrimental and that humans wouldn't care for certain "Higher Goods," like keeping in contact with reality and not being brains hooked up to a pleasure-machine.

This requires a greater elaboration than Harris gives of his account of pleasure.

>Was I making a metaphysical claim?

Yes. 'living things WANT to go on living...' and so on.

>I was explaining to you how animals (and you still are one, mind you) tend to function.

What plants? They are living things. Do they also 'want' to go on living?

What about fungi?

What is the nature of this 'wanting' of non-sentient living things?

And as to human animals: throughout history we find a plenititude of people coming to the conclusion that suicide is the most desirable option for them, without any physical pathology determining or motivating this decision. Socrates seems the most salient example.

File: so u be sayin.gif (2MB, 288x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 288x288px

>>9543929

>This requires a greater elaboration than Harris gives of his account of pleasure.

Sure... But you're taking an uncharitable stand towards what he said. Instead of assuming that he might look at things in a complex way, you're instead choosing to think he's a toddler that hasn't picked up a book or considered the implications.

You're forgetting that his books are meant for a broad audience, for some of whom Harris' books might even be an introduction to science and/or ethics.

I'm fairly certain that if you were to talk to him directly, you would find out that he HAS considered many of these factors, with far more depth than what you give him credit for.

He is vain and incredibly insecure, and sometimes dogmatic in his hatred of religion, but he's not stupid.

>Yes. 'living things WANT to go on living...' and so on.

Again, you're pretty much taking things however you want, instead of paying attention of what I'm really saying to you. What do you think, that I, a person that has no professional study in philosophy, meant that "want" in the way you're interpreting it now, or was it only a statement with regards to the fact that living things are programmed to stay alive and procreate?

>What plants? They are living things. Do they also 'want' to go on living? What about fungi?

Of course they do.

>And as to human animals: throughout history we find a plenititude of people coming to the conclusion that suicide is the most desirable option for them, without any physical pathology determining or motivating this decision. Socrates seems the most salient example.

Except that Socrates thought himself a martyr that was proving a point, and conceivably doing a great favor to the future generations (which we could argue he did). Never mind the fact that he was already in his old age, and was fairly sure his kids would be taken care of.

So, yeah, Socrates did kill himself. But he did it for the greater good, which we've already covered. This is no different than you killing yourself to save your son or daughter. Since we're smart and able to abstract and universalize certain concepts, there's no reason why you, or I, or any other male wouldn't give his life to ensure the safety and well-being of the society that's integral in supporting our developing offspring.

File: i4kVxHpd[1].jpg (42KB, 438x438px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 438x438px

What does /lit/ think of Dave Rubin?

>>9532628
Yes, freedom to set the context for discussion around a current philosophical and political hotbed. Get over yourself and just ignore the threads if they bother you. Or better yet, start one of your own, or are you just annoyed that these men can garner more momentum of thought with just a picture of their mugs than you could if you put all your thought and effort into it?

>>9536156
Controlling spam protects freedom of speech. You think freedom of speech should not apply on 4chan? Fuck off, it's great that 4chan can operate outside social norms that limit expression of ideas.

>>9544017

He's a faggot and a kike. He pretends to be neutral, but he's definitely not. It's true that he's not Young Turks tier, but let's not forget that he worked there.

Not long ago he had some /his/-related """scholar""" come on his show, talking about how Islam brought upon the Dark Ages and bla, bla, bla. Just looking up his website could've demonstrably shown that his research is entirely in the realm of the fantastic, and he has no real evidence. The fact that his people wouldn't check a thing so basic is sad.

Then again, he has a disproportionate amount of right-leaning people on there. He pretends that every person on the left is a crazed SJW, and that the real left is the alt-right. He also thinks he can't possibly be biased because, again, he's a faggot and a kike.

Joe Rogan is a million times superior to him, and that's saying a lot.

>>9543985

Why use the term 'want', then, when you 'meant' something else? Why not use your words clearly, precisely, and deliberately, if you want to be understood?

Socrates was condemned to exile or death by the leaders of his society. The manner of his death could be and was taken as a symbol by his acolytes, as a testament to the triumph of the intellect over received wisdom or petty affairs, but the actual REASON he gave for choosing suicide was simply that death was favorable to exile.

But let's leave the question of suicide for the moment. What are we to make of, say, monks, that voluntarily remove themselves from the prospective gene pool and live a life of penury, excoriation of the body, and worship of the divine? How could such behavior be selected for, being so antithetical to the principles of evolution?

Or what of the Jainist, whose soul mission is to end their life as quickly and naturally as possible, while leaving the least disturbance in the 'natural order' of things, which includes refusing to beget children to halt the succession of death and rebirth?

>>9527083
autist but not in the fun way

>>9527083
the reason /lit/ hates harris GENERALLY is because reddit loves him but philosophers generally hate harris because he's the novelty t shirt of philosophers

He's started to suck on the red pill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us

>>9543792
There's also the fact that separated twins become more similar (in both intelligence and personality traits) the older they become.

>>9527083
He's an irrational rationalist.
Literally a robot with no understanding of subjectivity.

>>9543792
the study I believe hes referencing is some study of adopted children in northern europe in either sweden or switzerland

prejudice atititudes do not affect people in relation to IQ and "enriched" environments do not produce a solid standard deviation increase in IQ, youre talking about several points rather than gigantic increases. environment pretty much determines whether you'll lose points rather than gain, an abusive environment will fuck over pretty much anyone in multiple ways, and considering the effects of severe childhood adversities and repeated extreme stress have been observed as physically shrinking grey brain matter and certain parts of the brain

>>9544037
Joe Rogan thinks sam is smarter than him, so....

>>9527083
le atheist cuck who like eastern religions meme

File: DAHopkjW0AE_mNx.jpg (94KB, 700x760px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 700x760px

>>9529274
>being a commie fuck in 2017

>>9544074

>Why use the term 'want', then, when you 'meant' something else? Why not use your words clearly, precisely, and deliberately, if you want to be understood?

Because I don't assume the person I'm speaking to to be completely autistic. I'm obviously not talking about any will in any abstract sense, considering that there isn't even any free will to begin with.

>Socrates was condemned to exile or death by the leaders of his society. The manner of his death could be and was taken as a symbol by his acolytes, as a testament to the triumph of the intellect over received wisdom or petty affairs, but the actual REASON he gave for choosing suicide was simply that death was favorable to exile.

Except, that's not true. Socrates brought the trial upon himself with his behavior, and then went out of his way to be a cunt during the trial knowing he would get himself condemned to death. It's beyond clear that he thinks of himself as a purgative force, and that being killed by the people only because they're unable to reflect upon themselves honestly will be his final master move. There's even a part during the trial where he says something tantamount to "You think you're getting rid of me, but by killing me you're only going to motivate those that follow in my footsteps to challenge you even more." He was clearly aware of what he was doing and how momentous his choice was.

Nor does he want death over exile because it's favorable in the sense you're trying to convey. He reasons out that he's contractually bound to Athens and its people regardless of what they choose to do with him, and then looks at the bright side by discussing the afterlife.

While it's true that he mentions exile and explicitly talks about it being shameful and unpalatable, that's not his primary reason for staying by any means.

Have you even read the Apology, or Crito? Because you either haven't, and you're talking out of your ass based on what some professors have told you, or you're intentionally misrepresenting Plato's writings and Socrates.

>>9544074

Cont.


>How could such behavior be selected for, being so antithetical to the principles of evolution?

There is so much wrong with this that I'm not even sure where to begin. You're making so many bad judgments from the outset.

1. The fact that errant behavior behaviors exist doesn't mean that they were selected for in the way that you mean. They could be latent effects of genes that ended up surviving for God knows what reason in the past, or simply unwanted mutations. The only reason you're choosing to look at, say, a guy that's born and ends up killing himself for his philosophy differently than retard that can't even provide for himself, is because you have a biased view towards IQ. If you put that aside and look at it in the big picture, you can see why they're pretty much the same. They're both defectives, if different ways.

2. You're over-estimating the number of ascetics. I don't know about the East, but in the West there's very little evidence to assume that many people working in religious circles really were the self-deniers they posed as. If you look at it realistically and consider the number of people that were engaged in stuff like this, it's not so hard to explain. I mean, why are there girls jumping in front of trains because of what a bully told them in school. Surely, the desire to reproduce should override that, right? It doesn't always.

3. However, the most important point to stress is that as far as humans are concerned, scientists are beginning to look at the people like the ones you mentioned in different ways, given our embedded need meaning and dependency on good ideas. That is to say, they're not so much ensuring the use of their reproductive capacity, as ensuring the transmission of certain ideas that are beneficial to the species as a whole. Like, say, a scientist that ends up having no children and dedicates his entire life to a field of research.

So, big picture, it's probably a combination. You have people that are sacrificing themselves to ensure that the healthy society they're a part of lives on, as well the offspring it produces; you have others that are spending their time developing useful ideas that will strengthen that society and guarantee its success; and then you have those that are simply fucked in the head and making use of negative ideologies to justify their suicide, or the destruction of the world, or what have you.

>>9545634

>be contractually bound to exile or death
>choose death
>not an expression of preference over exile for...reasons.

>>9545657

Sounds like a great deal of speculation. Where's your statistical support?

>>9545634

You've really strayed from your original claim. I'll reproduce it here:

>living things want to go on living Everything wants to stay alive and perpetuate itself, unless it's sacrificing itself for its offspring.

Let's test this principle, shall we?

All living things want to go on living
Socrates (was) a living thing
Therefore, Socrates ((should)) have wanted to go on living

But oh no he killed himself.

So much for that.

>>9545657

>The fact that errant behavior behaviors exist doesn't mean that they were selected for in the way that you mean.

But maladaptive behaviour, i.e. behavior that compromises 'sexual fitness' e.g. the practice of celibacy, will be heavily selected AGAINST. There might not have been many true ascetics during the height of Christian religious institutions in Europe, but there were a HELL of a lot of clergy, and they were all forbidden from producing children. Even if they didn't all adhere to this injunction, a great many of them did, and did so willingly, which gives the obvious lie to your claim that 'Everything wants to stay alive and perpetuate itself, unless it's sacrificing itself for its offspring or is damaged in some profound way'. You could take the snide route and claim entering a religious order that forbids reproduction is indicative of 'profound damage', but that's a rather weak claim and in any case contradicts your other claim that people can seek for things other than bodily pleasure.

But anyway, on to this notion of propagating ideas rather than children to the benefit of the 'species as a whole', i.e. group or multi-level selection. This seems plausible, but is again at odds with your principle that 'everything wants to stay alive and perpetuate itself', which presupposes the individual organism as the unit of selection. In any case, there are quite a few strong critiques of group selection, notably from proponents of alternate theories such as kin selection (W.D. Hamilton and George R. Price). The math seems to be on the side of the kin selectionists, but we can also just ask ourselves what, exactly, would motivate not the individual, but the genetic configuration of individuals over the course of several centuries and even millenia, to deliberately erase themselves from the future. Seems like these genes would have a very hard time propagating themselves in order to allow the individuals they compose to propagate the ideas that would enable them to be unable to propagate themselves.

Given all these paradoxes and confusions, one might wonder if selection is the best or even a proper lens through which to view human behavior from a first-person or subjective perspective, or to fully explain it from a third.

File: it's time.jpg (82KB, 540x396px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 540x396px

>>9545709

>be contractually bound to exile or death
>choose death

He wasn't contractually bound to one or the other you FUCKING MORON, because I've run out of polite words to use with you.

THE TIMELINE IS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Socrates is being a dick to people (Euthyphro is a good example).
2. An offended group decides to bring him to court and accuse him of impiety, thinking Socrates will make a fool of himself and beg for mercy, or at least be forced to shut up. (Apology)
3. Socrates turns this on its head and says that not only should they thank him for being a positive force, but reward him by offering him free meals. (Apology).
4. Socrates is condemned to death. (Apology)
5. Crito comes and advises Socrates to escape, because that's what people usually do, even if they're condemned to death. (Crito)
6. Socrates says no, because since living under Athenian law and rule has been so prosperous for him throughout his long life, it would be immoral to turn against Athens now. (Crito)

THAT IS TO SAY, he saw exile as moral degeneracy BECAUSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. Yes, people did it all the time, and the others turned a blind eye. But that was exactly what Socrates was fighting against: people ignoring what's really going on and how terrifyingly weak their grasp of reality and themselves really is. THIS IS WHY HE ANTAGONIZED THEM AND MADE THEM CONDEMN HIM TO DEATH IN THE FIRST PLACE. To bring this to fucking attention, and also die with his honor intact.

Had you even fucking read Plato, you fucking slime? Can you stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about, mouthing only vagaries you've heard from God knows what source?

>>9545709

>Where's your statistical support?

It's not a statistical report, imbecile, because we obviously can't do psychological reviews of people that have been dead for one thousand years. But we can look at how humans generally function today regardless of societies and beliefs, and reason out that it's incredibly unlikely that your average Catholic priest was a devoted ascetic. Never mind historical accounts that give us a redpill perspective on it (like so many that came out of the Reformation).

But I do like how you ignored basically everything else of import in that post, and instead tried to weasel your way out by trying to call for "statistics" for the least relevant section. Fucking pathetic.

You try to take some uppity philosophical language with me when it's clear that you have a tenuous--if not downright faulty--grasp of the Platonic dialogues at best, and then try to challenge me on simple biological/evolutionary ideas that have enjoyed a consensus in the their respective scientific fields for decades, asking about things you haven't even taken the time to do some cursory reading on.

>muh metaphysics
>muh philosophical idea of will

Uninstall yourself. There's a reason philosophy has become a laughingstock--pedantic, arrogant, and scientifically illiterate motherfuckers like you.

File: 1490300347850.jpg (63KB, 817x857px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 817x857px

>>9545822

you seem mad, my dude

there is no need to be mad

>>9535620
Because we have better and more destructive weapons than trucks and exploding teenagers.

I'm an atheist, not the plebbit kind but the far right kind in a Nietzschean sense. Christianity is Jewish and weak. I liked parts of Harris's End of Faith book, but he's a neo-libtard who's also pro-Israel and an AWFUL debator. I watch debates between him and William Lane Craig and Craig just humiliates him every time.

STOP fucking bumping this thread as its about to prune you fucking cunt