>Spend your entire life being praised by plebeians for having boring cliche opinions about Islam and Determinism
>Try to obtain a level of respect within the academic community by publishing a book on morality
>Fail to even overcome a man over 250 years before
>Instead of forming an argument, you ignore him entirely
Is this the typical life of a stemtard that tries to go into philosophy?
Who's a man
Hume presumably
>boring cliche opinions about Islam and Determinism
Boring, cliche and yet nonetheless correct.
He won fame by telling the truth.
Nice boring, cliche opinion and image you got there.
>boring cliche opinions
Islam should be destroyed. That should be this world's main concern if they take the Enlightenment dear.
Nice to see that instead of talking about the most important point in the OP, that being ethics, you decided to take on the most boring point, that being Islam.
Continue being an intellectual lightweight your entire life.
You are a non-entity, a smothered ego
>Hating on Sam Harris in 2016
Let me guess, you're a civic nationalist.
No, I'm what they call in the underground scene, a 'philosopher'.
I used to be the same: "LOL SAM HURRIS PLEB TIER NEW ATHEIST * tips le hat *"
But then I checked out his podcast and the dude honestly has a well-measured look at Islam among other subjects.
Not every popular author is fucking shit, you elitist pricks.
Sam Harris presents his ideas in ways that seem reasonable to people who aren't well-versed in the fields he's talking about.
He's an amateur philosopher and political theorist and that's cool; amateurs can write books too, so long as they do their homework. This is Sam's issue: he doesn't do the reading, and so he makes mistakes with the blithe psueo-intellectual arrogance of an American Buddhist.
Watch the video on Youtube where an Oxford grad student points out to him the issue with the moral landscape; in a minute, the whole thesis of Sam's book is undermined completely. And it wouldn't have taken a grad student to it -- any undergrad could've accomplished the task just as handily.
Listen to his podcast with Dan Carlin, in which Dan tries to point out to Sam some of the nuances he's missing about geopolitics.
Listen to Sam's interview with David Chalmers, in which Dave is a teacher and Sam is a student in Sam's very own putative field of expertise. You'll see how much Sam is missing in his confident eagerness to come to definite conclusions.
The only philosopher who will endorse Sam's views is Dan Dennett, who is widely regarded as horrible by other philosophers. I brought up Dennett's name to a philosipher I know, and he summarily responded "he's trash."
Read some of his papers and you'll see why.
Sam Harris is popular because he begs the question in a lucid way. He panders to our most unexamined intuitions and draws from them conclusions that many are already eager to accept. He hasn't convinced anyone who disagreed with him at the outset, and so he shouldn't.
The Enlightenment was one of the most destructive events in human history though. The Enlightenment shouldn't have happened.
Could you go into more detail as to WHY Sam Harris is so bad?
is anyone else bummed that chalmers cut his hair thus ending the era of thrash philosophy?
>Is this the typical life of a stemtard that tries to go into philosophy?
Education: Philosophy (B.A. 2000), Neuroscience (Ph.D. 2009)
It's time for Load/Reload philosophy motherfucker
sooo the opposite.
I'm pretty sure Dennett is more respected as a philosopher than you're making out, and certainly doesn't merit comparison to Ben Stiller.
Not that I think he's any good; I just think you're misrepresenting his standing. Certainly my philosophy lecturers either like him or at the very least take him quite seriously.
(Is your philosopher friend a continental, because that'd explain why he thinks he's trash. That's why I can't really get behind him, because so much about the analytic approach strikes me as being inherently off.)
What truth?
No, he's an analytic who went to Princeton
I just told you why he's bad; do you want me to explain to you why his positions are wrong?
please watch/listen to the things I pointed you toward in my post
so very--he was our dave mustaine. the hard problem of consciousness will never be quite so hard again
let me go into what I've heard and what my impression is a little: Dan Dennett misreads and misuses Quine, takes adopts controversial positions because doing so gets him attention and, instead of backing them up, fails adhere to minimal standards of clarity that are suspposed to define analytic philosophy. He's out of touch like a logical positivist and he writes like a Hegelian trying to be David Lewis.
lemme guess, you're some cucktholic pseud