Why is Veeky Forums so terribly, terribly afraid of this man?

He's a meme. A hack. A fraud. He only appeals to smug atheist pseuds who don't know anything about philosophy. Not even Jordan "buy my personality test, bucko" Peterson is as bad.

because the vast majority of the criticism he gets is made up from strawmans

People are afraid of what they don't understand...

Because it has regrettably become cool to be an irrational bible thumper again and this man proves them wrong.

anybody else think this nigga looks like a founding father? like if he had a powdered wig and shit. not saying that as a complement or insult just observation.

I'm afraid that his way of thinking will become the norm

This is what a lie looks like, boys and girls.

Why?

I mean, why do you think his way of thinking has any chance of becoming *the* way of thinking?

The only thing Harris has ever proved, and, seemingly, can prove, is that he is an idiot.

Are you "afraid that" or are you "'fraid that"?

Harris has just replaced one form of irrational belief with another.

>haha yeee doood give people pills that torture them but make it unnoticeable on the outside so the torturers don't suffer from trauma hahaha is this ethically alright or what

Ben “Towel on their head? Nuke em til they’re dead” Stiller
Ben “Believe in the afterlife, you get the Occam knife” Stiller
Ben “freak gasoline fight in the land of the Israelites” Stiller

His attempt at bridging the is/ought gap is hilariously fallacious.

He is without a doubt, one of the best philosophers of our age.

redbull me on this jew pls

nigga retarded

All of the intellectuals and academics he has on his podcast express their respect for him and what he does. Only randoms on Veeky Forums hate him, for being popular.

As for his argument against the is/ought gap, there are professional philosophers who have made similar arguments, but because they're academics they get a free pass from Veeky Forums.

>getting btfo by Ben Shaprio and Scott Adams
How does he even show his face again

Name them then. I've never seen any other academic make an argument as bad as his.

>Only randoms on Veeky Forums hate him, for being popular.
His philosophical musings are high school school tier and he's laughably bad at debating. Reminder he got his ass handed to him by a fucking cartoonist and that isn't even his most humiliating defeat.

>All of the intellectuals and academics he has on his podcast express their respect for him and what he does.
Common courtesy =/= respecting what someone does

*academics he pays to be on his bodcast

Someone post his tweets.

The physicist David Deutsch for one did a podcast with Harris on his book The Moral Landscape and he respected it. Just look up his last podcast and skip to the end and you'll hear neuroscientist Anil Seth praise him for his work. Pretty much every person he has on his podcast tells him they respect what he does in having serious long form conversations with experts in their field.

As for his argument against the is/ought gap, he seems to be making an argument something like those of Torbjörn Tännsjö and Lawrence Becker. Tännsjö argues that oughts come from intrinsic value, with it being no contradiction in saying that we ought to obtain or increase what is intrinsically value. He believes, like Harris, that pleasure or wellbeing is intrinsically valuable. Becker says that we can derive ought's from goals. For example, if I have the goal of doing well on an exam, then I ought to study for it. Harris has made this point as well.

>Only randoms on Veeky Forums hate him
Chomsky hates him too.

>All of the intellectuals and academics he has on his podcast express their respect for him and what he does.
Why would people who don't respect him appear on his podcast?

We aren't afraid. We just agree that he's a mong.

He's a logical positivist, a rationalist masquerading as an empiricist, a priest of scientism, a utilitarian, and to top if all off, he believes in a correspondence theory of truth, lmfao.
God harnessed the essence of reddit and put it into a human form for the amusement of us. Praise kek.

>Becker says that we can derive ought's from goals. For example, if I have the goal of doing well on an exam, then I ought to study for it. Harris has made this point as well.
yea those are called
well yea
they're called hypothetical imperatives
totally uncontroversial
and not 'moral' injunctions
harris et all should just drop the pretense that they have 'discovered' 'real' 'objective' 'moral' 'values' and admit to themselves and everybody else that they're just crude
pragmatists because
seriously
that's all this is
>if you want to obtain object x you must perform those tasks that will allow you to obtain object x
like
like holy
like holy smoking moly i really
really honest to god never thought of it like that

Not the guy you're responding to here, but I think Harris' position has more to do with defining X as a phenomenological universal, rather than just positing that "If X, then Y". He says that we all share a universal aversion to "things that suck", to use his highly academic terminology, and should, therefore, make the avoidance of said things that suck our imperative.

>>Becker says that we can derive ought's from goals. For example, if I have the goal of doing well on an exam, then I ought to study for it. Harris has made this point as well.
Studying to do well on an exam isn't a moral decision, it's a technical one.
It's neither moral nor immoral to pass an exam. It's not a moral fucking goal. That's like saying, "If I have the goal of winning this chess game, then I ought to move my queen to f2." Your example reduces moral decisions to game theory, which implies that there must necessarily be some optimal moral behavior. You're begging the question.

you
like
just restated my point
like this is exactly my beef with harris' fucking position

again
that's a hypothetical imperative
taking an object as an end--even if you arbitrarily define that object as 'universal'--and then establishing the means to obtain that end
which takes the form 'if i want to x, i must y'
the best that you could derive from this is a kind of personal pragmatics that really doesn't extend past the individual
there's nothing about a 'univeral aversion to sucky things' that would then compel me to, say, ensure others that they also avoid sucky things
it's a fucking non sequitur

>He says that we all share a universal aversion to "things that suck", to use his highly academic terminology, and should, therefore, make the avoidance of said things that suck our imperative.
And it is exactly this that makes his stance so asinine and idiotic. How can you possibly state that we all 'avoid things which suck'. Unfortunately, there are masochists and things of that nature. And if you are talking about deriving moral principles, there are misanthropists.

Honestly, he is more delusional than the religious affiliates he attacks, for he seems to believe that there exists NO evil or deviation from nature at all. We aren't robots, and are vastly different in character and personality. By definition the way he is describing our decision-making capabilities is determinism. No more, no less.

We don't learn from being punished, we learn from understanding. This understanding leads us to higher levels of understanding. How can we understand anything if we are simply seeking to remove discomforts? This myopic view of the determination of our morality is limiting, it posits that we simply seek to remove discomforts and avoid discomfort collectively as a Darwinian trait, because even if he hasn't explained it that way, that is what's implied. He's wrong. That's not how morality is derived.

because his false message plays well with people who tend toward authoritarianism whichwhen taken together seems like a good recipe for justifying some atrocious shit

>not even JP is as bad

Compare two steaming piles of shit and ask, which smells worse?

Whatever your answer they both are still two sizzling dung heaps

So he believes wellbeing is instrinsically valuable, but why ought he believe that?

Edgy.

You cannot even derive oughts from goals.

P1: I want to do well on an exam.
P2: Studying helps me score better for an exam.
C: I ought to study for the exam.

This is an abductive argument, not a deductive argument.
If you want it to be a deductive argument, you need:
P3: I ought to fulfill my desires.

Which means you are using an ought premise after all.
The is/ought gap is the fact that you cannot start from only IS premises and deductively arrive at an OUGHT conclusion.

He subscribes to secularization theory. A theory (ironically) most secular scholars know to be false.

This is a good point

A common sense way of looking at this is to notice that we have conflicting desires, and so it really isnt obvious that every desire should be fulfilled

>implying Chomsky isn't a random on Veeky Forums

nice try (((user)))

Ben Shapiro is 160+ IQ. Not weird to get bfto by him.

really now

I remember he made an argument that women covering thier hair was scientifically bad. He couldn't explain why tho.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-moral-responsibility/
>While agent-causal libertarianism could, in theory, supply this sort of control, hard incompatibilists argue that it cannot be reconciled with our best physical theories (Pereboom 2001, 2014a; Waller 2011; Harris 2012; cf. N. Levy 2011) and faces additional problems accounting for mental causation.
>Harris, Sam, 2012, Free Will, New York: Free Press.

We legit philosopher now?

Because it sucks for both women and men, just like touching a hot stove.

It's just something that sucks. We try to avoid things that sucks!!! :^)

>Ben Shapiro is 160+ IQ
yeah he's also 6''2'

yeah he also has a 12" dick. Honestly I don't understand how he doesn't just walk into a room and instantly btfo out of everyone who sees his height/mensabadge/pantsbulge

The height/mensabadge/pantsbulge trick probably helps at philosopher conventions when they use dick length and height to determine who the smarter person is. The mensabadge is just a safety measure.

It sucking doesnt make it scientifically wrong, the point was you cant use science to make moral rulings.

>It sucking doesnt make it scientifically wrong
According to him, it is something you ought to avoid at all costs. Did you even read the train of arguments?

He got BTFO by Chomsky. Fucking Chomsky.

Yh he kept making that argument, but it doesnt fly with me.

He had to take an IQ test at some point in his education (maybe to get into Harvard) and 150 was the minimum requirement. He's mentioned this a few times in his podcasts and he tends to play down his actual score, so around 160 at that time seems about right.

He also mentions that there were people in his class with ridiculously high IQs who never amounted to anything. The point being that a high IQ without discipline and drive will get you nowhere.

>exhibit 3:unfortunately, many experiences suck

citation needed
i do think he's got over 130 iq though

Sam Harris btfo

static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

you do not need to have a 150+ IQ to qualify for anything
it's the same as harris calling himself a scientist--he is the co-author, and not even the lead writer, of ONE paper that he didn't even perform research for
he's performed no research since
but he calls himself and is introduced as a 'neuroscientist'
these people are marketing themselves to the gullible and the stupid, and to those easily intimidated by the facade of intelligence

HEATHEN

>It’s easy to laugh, as some of us do, at the phrase “conservative intellectual.” When the most prominent public spokesmen for the right’s ideas include Milo Yiannopoulos, Charles Murray, and Dinesh D’Souza, one might conclude that the movement does not have anything serious to offer beyond “Feminism is cancer,” “Black people are dumb,” and “Democrats are Nazis.” (Those are, as I understand it, the central intellectual contributions of Yiannopoulos, Murray, and D’Souza, respectively.)
Stopped reading there

neat, thanks for sharing

Thanks for sharing that terrible article

ye
sorry u can't move past ur own hurt feelings to read less than 4000 words

Hurt feelings?
When you start your article by calling Milo a conservative your shit article isn't worth any time

ye, he's not scottish either, is he?
what would you call milo?

He's clearly just a provocateur, I'm not even sure he has any true convictions, seeing as he's all over ''free speech'' while he was writing about the horrors of internet meanies just a few years ago.
And to say that the best conservative people can't come up with anything better than: ''Feminism is cancer'' or ''Black people are dumb''...
Just a very shit article

>OMG STOP STOP TALKING YOURE JUST TRIGGERED FACTS>FEELS BWAHAHAHHA BEGONE """""SUBJECTIVITY""""""
how do you dare to criticize ben shapiro without looking in the mirror first, user?

>to those easily intimidated by the facade of intelligence
You mean IQ?

wew

doesn't he have a phd in neuroscience tho?

i din't see how u can arrive at any determinate judgment having never got past the introductory paragraph

When I see multiple faults in the very first paragraph I'm not going to waste my time with it.
If you want me to read your article make sure it isn't terrible from the start

yes, technically, from a dissertation based off that paper he wasn't the lead writer on and didn't do any research for

rolling

faults being what? calling out three of the big meme names of internet/ social media 'conservatism'? the article's ait one of their ilk, not Leo Strauss or Michael Oakshott or even William F. Buckley.

So you think the right's main points are
>Black people are dumb
>feminism is cancer
>democrats are Nazis
It's about as stupid as an article saying that the main arguments of the left are:
>White people are racists
>Toxic masculinity is ruining society
>Republicans just want to kill people
I wouldn't read an article that starts like that either

my man it was just a little bantz
it's a fucking hatchet job, not a scholarly survey
chill
ya boi's a fraud
and a dweeby twink
who cares, really?

The Neural Correlates of Religious and Nonreligious Belief
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007272

It interesting that it points out that a persons opinion of what Gods beliefs are exactly matches their own beliefs, it's like walking up to a believer and saying "tell me one belief that God has that you don't agree with"...it leaves them stuck with a how could a God even "hold a belief" question, in other words an agnostic and therefore useless God.

This may try a verbal shifting of a kind of "makes the rules but doesn't have to follow them" or they can say "that I am not God" in which case they don't know who they are and will have to wander around in a dream for a while longer

Who's ''my boy''?
I'm sorry I didn't like the article, not sure why you're so upset by it.

not mad, man
did you not get the memo that we were talking about Ben Shapiro, the actual subject of that article you didn't read?

Why do you think Ben is ''my boy''?

because you're all in a tizzy over this hit piece
seems reasonable to conclude you're emotionally invested in the guy

I didn't read anything about Shapiro, I stopped after the first paragraph because it was bad

well then shut up no one cares

You cared enough to reply so often, I was good just telling people I thought the article was bad, which it is

thanks for the link user
>it leaves them stuck with a how could a God even "hold a belief" question, in other words an agnostic and therefore useless God
i cannot rly see why would holding no belief would make a god agnostic instead of omniscient nor why would that mean hes useless tho but ill take a look into it anyways