Well spoken

>shilled for hill
He failed the retard litmus test. He's either a psychologically impaired nihilist, or a shifty kike with a hidden shifty kike agenda.

From what I can gather, it's something to do with his overlap in different fields which triggers elitists into assuming he's dilettante in the one they're most concerned about.

He also tends to write about stuff which, for better or worse, is contentious. (Freewill, Religion, Foreign Policy, etc). Almost by design this is going to bring a significant amount of flack, which usually manifests itself as memes and shitposts.

I see a lot of people harping on the religion sutff which makes me think they haven't paid any attention to Harris in ~10 years, and just associate him with the "new atheism" movement, which granted was a large part of his fame at one point, but he barely touches on any longer.

Also, disagree with him all you want, but in the world of living orators - I don't think it's debatable that he's in the top 25 with regards to grasp of the english language.

reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/1bcd6f/why_isnt_sam_harris_a_philosopher/

Try reading what actual philosophers say on his vomit

>I don't think it's debatable that he's in the top 25 with regards to grasp of the english language.

Then why is he so incapable of articulating his arguments in way that isn't constantly being misrepresented as he likes to accuse everyone of doing? If literally every single person you debate is getting the wrong idea about you then maybe you're the problem.

I feel like it's mostly "you can lead a horse to water".

Doesn't it seem slightly suspicious that the only people that misrepresent his views are people he's arguing with? And that people who share his views can readily summarize them fairly?

Assuming you're talking about actual debates (which I think is fair since you say "every single person you debate", the fact that his opponents misrepresent his view shouldn't really detract from his explanation.

If I argued with millions of idiots and they all misunderstood me, the blame shouldn't be put on me.

Assuming you're talking about not only full debates but also just general disagreements (Dennett, Chomsky, etc) then you get into a separate can of worms, simply because it's clear these men have reading comprehension - and, IIRC Harris' arguments with these types of people usually isn't a "misrepresentation" but actually a disagreement on each others points, which are perfectly understood.

Thoughts?

>listen to sam's podcast
>trump decided to not follow up on the hillary persecution
>sammie: "who's the cuck now?"

lost my shit desu femelem

Fair point, but you have to understand there are a lot of the opposite on here. This place is filled to the brim with fact denying, neckbeard sporting nationalists

Jordan only defends the kernel of Christianity, ultimately the foundation of western civilization, which is True Speech.

JUST

>trump decided to not follow up on the hillary persecution
He's not president yet my man. You also have to realize that if he rattled on about how he was gonna get that bitch as soon as he became president, he'd just raise her alarm while she still had time to flee to Qatar or receive a pardon from Obama. He's talked about not telegraphing his moves to opponents quite a few times over the past several months. Think about these things pragmatically.

Isn't he not a philosopher because all he wrote was pop-sci books and sits around on podcasts all the time?

Zizek at leasts teaches at universities and writes actual books.

>I know Trump said he would, and now he isn't
>But just trust me, he's just biding his time
>Just trust me man, he's gonna do everything he promised
>You just gotta believe

This will be the mantra of the next 4 years.

>I know Trump said he would, and now he isn't
>But just trust me, he's just biding his time
He literally is. Everything that I posted makes perfect sense and falls in line with Trump's way of thinking. Take the BBC out of your mouth and think objectively for just a minute.

I want to see you hold back tears while you watch your career and everything you hold dear start crumbling around you through no fault of your own yet you continue to fight the good fight.

Is he going to do it before the Muslim registry? Because I would think that would be more important to start as soon as possible.

Hegel taught at universities and wrote books too, and all we have is smokescreen and headaches to show for it

>if he rattled on about how he was gonna get that bitch as soon as he became president, he'd just raise her alarm while she still had time to flee to Qatar or receive a pardon from Obama.

I don't think you have the slightest clue how law and government work.

maybe. i'm looking forward to it actually, pity i might not be able to watch it live. they both are great speakers, it should be interesting

It's never live. He records it, edits it, and uploads it.

When/where exactly?

Harris' repudiation of Trump is both accurate and telling of how he doesn't fall for shitty meme politicians just because they have a common enemy.

Explain it to me, big boy.

So what are you gonna do a year from now when you realize it's all just business as usual for politicians and all the miasma and smokescreen was to deceive the average voter to willingly give their support to a cause the benefits them in no way? This is nothing new. Superman is not coming to save the day, he never was and he never will.

>So what are you gonna do a year from now when you realize it's all just business as usual for politicians and all the miasma and smokescreen was to deceive the average voter to willingly give their support to a cause the benefits them in no way?
If both candidates were the same, why such a frantic effort from the media establishment to get HRC the presidency? Why did the corrupt neocon faction within the GOP launch an unprecedented assault against their own candidate repeatedly? Why did people like Soros funnel so much cash into HRC and smaller organizations that put together demonstrations against DT?

>This is nothing new. Superman is not coming to save the day, he never was and he never will.
It's clearly a unique election with a unique candidate coming out on top. I think you're just in the heat of bargaining on your journey through the five stages. You'll get through it, champ. Stay strong.

>universities decide who is a real philosopher

it's like you missed out on the 20th century

He is a for profit 'intellectual'. The literary equivalent to black science man. He is memed, because he is a meme.

>if both candidates were the same
you're reading the idea of "business as usual for politicians" wrong, because the similarity between the candidates were their use of pandering, not the people they pandered to, nor the ideas behind the pandering, as well as what would actually get done in office. No person for sure could identify each candidate's actual motives, but to say that they're the same behind a smokescreen of division is just wrong.

I was too busy with Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche to get bogged down in Hegel's circus

don't lie to yourself, nigga. JP is going to wreck Harris, he doesn't stand a chance.

It's not a verbal boxing match. Did JP btfo out of Joe Rogan on his podcast? No they just talked about shit, and had a dialectic on things they disagreed on. The same thing is going to happen here.

thing is, Harris is one of the four horsemen of atheism and Peterson has been defending religion for years. wouldn't surprise me if things get heated.

>Scientific basis for morality

It doesn't matter how well-spoken you are.

If you defend this proposition, you are trash.

I look forward to seeing Veeky Forums summarize and consequently meme this conversation.

>mfw

Sorry, I meant to reply to the cunt who you replied to, the one who considers Zizek to be legitimate because of academia.

Zizek isn't a philosopher.

Now you're gettin' it, kid.

Zizek is a philosopher and a good one at that

This was a meme election tho
>literally hitler vs. a woman vs. elementary school student body president: the platform

and the best meme won out

...

>If literally every single person you debate is getting the wrong idea about you then maybe you're the problem.

Except this isn't what happens at all. He publishes shitton of conversations and most of them manage to be constructive and. There is an absolutely tiny minority of exchanges that was unproductive and milked for sensationalism by the other side.

Most criticism I see of Harris is by people who obviously have not bothered to read / watch the stuff they criticize in full. That's what happens when you touch controversial topics today. You can't come out clean. I suggest you'd start watching the podcasts he does or reading his books in full.

This is not dealing with any of the arguments he used to explain his position. You're writing like a rabid dog.

Because he's a pseud

>This is not dealing with any of the arguments he used to explain his position.
He came to the wrong conclusion. He's also a kike. A reasonable and informed man can only surmise that he's a retard and his rationale aren't worth knowing.

This.

Quite the opposite. We don't think abortion is bad anymore thanks to science, for example.

That is'n't what he says.

Science gives us facts, it doesn't give us morals.

>We don't think abortion is bad anymore thanks to science
what are you even talking about

do you base your morals on facts or on a book written by primitive men?

>do you base your morals on facts
do you? I don't know anyone who does.

Take the question of the morality of abortion. If it were a fact that conception was (or wasn't) the point at which life started, this fact would influence our analysis of whether or not abortion was moral.

What Harris argues against is a misunderstanding of the fact/value distinction that says that facts have no bearing on moral considerations.

Only a nu-male redditor considers Sam Harris a """"""philosopher"""""

that still doesn't make a science-based morality work. science doesn't assign value, it can't assing value.

Friendly reminder that Sam Harris fakes his neuroscience credentials.

>thinking because he isn't a philosopher he has nothing to say
This is the mark of a true pseudointellectual. Somebody who dismisses the ideas of people outside academia, who only reads classic literature, who thinks only canon philosophers can tell them anything helpful about life, who thinks they're intelligent because they browse Veeky Forums.

Harris never suggests it does. He says that we start off valuing wellbeing, then science and reason can tell us what we ought to value if we want to maximise the wellbeing of ourselves and those around us. He never derives an ought from an is.

not an argument

>we

Guardians shirking their responsibilties to care for the biological necessities of their dependents is not a good thing

>we start off valuing wellbeing
so it's not a science-based morality

not him but seems like sam is just a shallow (and poorly read) utilitarian like much of his "humanist" ilk

Only the people misrepresenting Harris ever said it was. He himself never made that claim.

>four horsemen of atheism
but the four horsemen is a religious thing

you're telling me that the man who wrote a book titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values never made that claim?

Atheism is the new Christianity, all we are missing is a Martyr.

First off, he's said before that he didn't chose the subtitle about science for his book. Secondly, to say that science can determine human values is just to say that science can tell us what we ought to value if we want to maximise wellbeing. Still not deriving an ought from an is.

>mfw this thread

>if we want to maximise """""""""""""""""""""""""wellbeing"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

so utilitarianism?

He also thinks we should start a science of morality, much like there is a science of medicine. And just as we don't use the is/ought gap as an argument against making people healthy through medicine (who's to say we ought to be healthy), we shouldn't use it as an argument against trying to figure out how to make people happier.

>And just as we don't use the is/ought gap as an argument against making people healthy through medicine (who's to say we ought to be healthy)
there's no need. medicine isn't concerned with truth, it's concerned with health.

Not necessarily. Harris has stated before that he doesn't even call himself a consequentialist, though this has much to do with what he sees as misperceptions of consequentialism.

He's not arguing on the level of utilitarianism vs deontology or whatever. He's arguing for ther use of science and reason to explore the possibilities of happiness and wellbeing for conscious creatures.

And to not say the same thing of morality seriously impedes our ability to make people happier through our knowledge of the world.

Seems like heavily faith based philosiphy

>The literary equivalent to black science man.
Black science man is much more successful.

Faith in what?

I *am* more intelligent than you, brainlet.

Only *brainlets* think Sam Harris has provided anything of worth.

You are a *brainlet*.

In axioms and first premises just like every religion

>happiness and well being are good "ends"
>conscious thought exists
>all the axioms science and "reason" stand upon

Also, to use "science" as an axiom you need to hold that all events reproducible and observable OR simply agree to disregard non-observable and non-reproducible events

In itself

Come on, you can't be serious about supporting Trump for POTUS. /pol/ did it for the lolz.

The man is a dork who couldn't even sustain his business without fraud and subsidies.

It is logically incoherent to realize you do not exist

/pol/ didn't do it just for the lolz and accusing a billionaire that he can't sustain his business is a really weak argument concocted by the elites and the media.

don't pile up on me, I'm european and I didn't have any dog in the fight. I hoped however that Trump would win just so I can see the white-hating progressives getting triggered.

Logic is based on axioms too.

Even so, no it's not logically incoherent to realize you do not exist.

Cogito ergo sum is a syllogism.
I think
Thinkers exist
I think therefore I am

The first two lines are axioms that must be held true to find "cogito ergo sum" true

Nietzsche observed that Descartes ought to have said "It thinks" rather than "I think" because Descartes is relying on a premise of a self existing.

>by the elites and the media.
>Billionaires

Think about it.