Is Sam Harris worth a listen? I still have no clue who he is but I see him in the political scene

I am an atheist, I am just saying that normie fags need this shit because they're mentally retarded. Even if they don't believe in god, they believe in science as a religion.

>science as a religion
This is an oxymoron.

That's the point, I am saying that most people are retarded

More like scientism (using science to directly support ethics)

I listened to both of Sam's podcasts with Jordan and the first one was so frustrating but the second was a good listen.

I respect Sam for actually standing for free speech though and I was surprised to see he had Charles Murray on his podcast.

Well i'm not sure i understand you, you can use game theory(non-classical) to justify not being a complete dick. this can be done by recognising that your choices in the game will have an effect on the choices of others. life is a non-zero sum game

Well from a scientific stand point is he interesting I don't really care about his politics

>objective morality

Sure, we'll just throw Neumann and Hobbes at Joe Blow the normie car mechanic when his fear of going to hell does just as good a job at keeping him in line. That user isn't arguing for religion and scientism for people who understand the social contract, game theory, etc.

>implying opinion on wether moral is objective or subjective isn't subjective and that moral is subjective

gtfo this is Veeky Forums biiiaatch

>listening to shit harris instead of jordan based peterson

I wasn't advocating for objective morality non-peterson brainlet, now sort yourself out, bucko

>Jordan Peterson is better.

He's a bright guy, and I think his key points are worth listening to. But, it takes him a while to get to his points.

who knew interesting things would be so complicated

>jordan based peterson
sounded like a mystic bs artist

You have no idea what you're talking about. Please look up these terms before you sling them around. You've fallen for the subjectivist fallacy.

Sam Harris on his own, imo, is not terribly interesting. It's hard to describe, but the man thinks in a very particular way, one that isn't very compelling when you don't align with it. That said, his podcast is something I recommend wholeheartedly. Sam talks to interesting people, he does his homework, and generally has very productive conversation. On contemporary issues, he generally has very wide-ranging conversations that manage to remain cogent and well connected, while the more scientific discussions tend to go quite deep on particular areas of concern. In particular, I recommend #42 w/ Glenn Loury, #73 with Charles Murray, #71 with Tristan Harris, and #37 with Neil deGrasse Tyson

Regarding his talks with Peterson, I'd recommend people compare his 2nd discussion with Peterson (#67) to the podcast w/ Yuval Noah Harari (#68). The two actually bring up incredibly similar themes and ideas, but Sam's reaction to them is very different; so far as I can tell, it just so happened that Harari's presentation was more amenable to Sam's way of thinking.

can't say I fully understand all of Peterson

but what I do understand of him helped me change my life for the better

chomsky is infinitely better.

>Chomsky
You may as well have said Derrida or Foucault.

i respect that he contributed to linguistics but he should shut the fuck up about politics, it's embarrassing

Fuckin hell. Peterson talking about spiritual bullshit is the cringiest stuff. But he honestly does a good thing with his videos. He's a great speaker and has been a positive influence on my life.

Sam Harris is alright. He talks about some neat stuff on his podcasts and tries to be as logical as he can. I honestly don't think you'll be that entertained by his stuff unless you're a bit of a normie.

>derrida boogeyman
consider this, peterson uses pomo thought in his arguments

People have more issues with postmodernism than is warranted desu.

>(as Godel proved)
Clueless.

Can you point out some examples?

> Is Sam Harris worth a listen? I still have no clue who he is but I see him in the political scene.

It depends. If you are a liberal, you should because he will align with your views.

Harris sounded clueless when talking with Adams
samharris.org/podcast/item/triggered

Scott Adams literally did what he thought Harris was doing, ascribing internal thought processes to Trump's actions. Harris merely stated that if you act like X, then you are X. Adams just sidestepped and was constantly trying to have "gotcha" moments.

Yes.

>Harris merely stated that if you act like X, then you are X.

This kills the 3D chess meme