These 2 moments really hit home for me. On parenting: "Don't always think of your role as disciplinarian, the person putting up the guardrails, the person coaching. On a regular basis, you just have to show love." On woke-ism in regards to transgender activism. "It's policing the language in a highly unrealistic way and making scapegoats of people who are actually on your side."
@derekbd I think you have some learning to do on the person/idea/legend of the nomenclature Hermes Mercurial Trismegistus. Labels tend to provide little benefit for the individual, while greatly inhibiting the amorphous and adaptive creature of cyclic nature in which you are. You are a being, and have the ability to improve or alter yourself on a daily basis, try to focus on being what you perceive as a better person than you were yesterday. When we adopt a label, we adopt every ideal and motive that lives under the umbrella of that label. There will never be a group of significant membership quantity, in which every member agrees completely with all the other members. Be the individual whom can change without judgement. Love and be loved, my friend!
@@chloegrobler4275 If you take a strong enough dose of a potent enough hallucinogen, it will change your perspective of things for the rest of your life... So, I'm going to go with, yes.
@derekbd Well, what I meant by adopting the ideals and motives of the group or label is what other people see when you paint yourself with such a group or label. Example: Currently in the US, there are MANY who will assume I have adoration for Trump if I make the claim of being conservative. Where I do lean more towards the conservative side, I have no support whatsoever for the lying troll that is Donald J. Trump.
The Trans questioner wanted to RIP Sam apart and blame him for all bad things related to transphobia. Again PROVING Sam’s point exactly. If you deny male/female sex you are denying what led you to know you are Trans!!
The trans person seemed to misunderstand reality, assigning blame and apparent harm caused by Harris for having spoken his thoughts in a manner most others would and did consider very carefully, guardedly benign. Observing the trans person, it appeared that any utterance that failed to lean favorably into blindly supporting their plight would be a harmful microaggressive behavior.
What a refreshingly honest, open and civilized conversation. The key moment was his Q&A with the trans woman. I think that kind of exchange is sorely needed. Sam is right that there is too much moral confusion. And that the premise of "dehumanization", although it may at first sight might seem valid, should be examined dispassionately and intellectually. His characterization of all of this as an orthodoxy or a new doctrine, the contravention of which may result in social (and sometimes economic) cancellation, is valid and needs to be discussed free from emotional and moral panic. Simply asking the question should not result in complete social annihilation. We should be more generous with each other and above all have compassion.
His ability to keep calm was also admirable. When she clearly got offended and asked why he didn't recognize her as a woman (something he never said) I would have reacted with "I never said that" but that might have escalated things. I just think he handled that very well.
Most of the more severe illnesses happen to people by surprise, unexpectantly, impacting first in the brain, then in the corresponding organ which that part of the brain controls. The end of WWI had absolutely everything to do with the Flu and lung TB outbreak that occurred killing millions. In nature, the biological conflict linked with a territorial fear (just what it means-a fear in your territory, your home, your community, etc.) is a widening of the bronchia (tissue loss). Your body attempts to widen your bronchia in order to allow more air into your lungs to give you more strength and energy to fight to keep your territory safe. Stay with me.......The biological conflict linked with a death fright impacts the lungs. The lungs attempt to grow larger in order to allow more air in because breath equals life, as we all know. No breath equals death. While you are in the fear or death fright conflict, you notice no symptoms of “disease”, except you have cold hands, cold feet, you can’t sleep, you awaken at 3 AM every night, you have little appetite. During the WW1, millions of people were in fear of the bombing of their homes and cities where the war was most active. Fearing for their lives, their loved ones in the war, their ability to survive. The food in the stores was sparse due to shortages. This lasted for 4 long years! The longer the conflict, the worse the healing phase. Within 2 weeks of the German Chancellor announcing the end of WWI, these millions of people ALL went into the healing phase all at the same time. It is during the healing phase that you experience symptoms of illness! What is the healing phase of the bronchia widening? Severe bronchitis, pneumonia. The body attempts to refill this lost tissue and you experience inflammation, fever, coughing, body aches, fatigue, etc. What is the healing phase of the extra lung tissue that grew? Decomposing of the tissue by TB bacteria and fungi. The symptoms of this healing phase are: severe coughing up of blood and tissue, fever, inflammation, severe mucous, body aches, fatigue. During this decomposing of the extra tissue (tumor), the body expels a lot of protein, and without replenishment, severe protein loss can result in death. Antibiotics did not exist yet. If TB bacteria does not exist in a person or they have been vaccinated against TB (big mistake), then the tumor will simply encapsulate and become dormant and not harm you. Who died during the Spanish Flu? Mainly the poor who could not afford to buy meat and proper nourishment, and the people who were directly impacted by the bombings and destruction of their homes. Millions of people suffered fear and death frights during the fighting of WWI, and millions of people all went into healing at the end of it. Not everyone was affected because not everyone suffered the same way. It’s not a “flu”, it’s not something you “catch”. You do not “catch” disease from others. A lie told for 100 years never becomes the truth. It’s biological, meaningful, and unavoidable. One hundred years later, a Fear Campaign begins, using the media to spread it......
Yes, the premise of dehumanization needs to be removed from conversation. Many people, probably even the majority, would consider trans people to be completely human, worthy of empathy, and to be having a human experience that needs attention. The discussion is almost never about that, it's about how we solve this difficulty, this new concept of trans genderism. It's obvious we should discuss it, because it's obviously not obvious what the solution is. That doesn't mean these people aren't taken seriously, quite the opposite in fact. Yet, if you talk about it, you're being accused of hating these people; discriminating against them - which is a simple lie.
@@my-back-yard What a horrible comment. You got what you wanted in me responding, I know. But I'd rather have your comment followed by something truthful. I'm sure you are not a horrible person, but the comment and your intention is disgusting.
@@vodkacannon Nice job taking an obvious metaphor literally. This is “the show” in contrast to the dress rehearsal, not in contrast to reality. Harris’s whole point in saying this was to illustrate the importance of making the most of this life, not do dismiss it as a mere play.
The question from the Axios reporter was perfectly indicative of Harris’s point. Anyone can be offended by anything. Even a perfectly articulated argument.
So what? It's their right to be offended. What I see is Harris doing well in this society, has massive media exposure, while cops are still killing blacks, widespread poverty, lack of access to medical care. Who wields power in the US? It's not Marxists and SJWs...it's still the white, educated elite.
@@SelfReflective Cops shouldn’t kill anyone without justification, and certainly not black people. But, in fact, a black person’s risk of being murdered by another black person is orders of magnitude greater than that person’s risk of being killed by a cop.
@@petemccutchen3266 Cops killing blacks is the kind of moral panic that Sam was referring to. The data simply doesn't support the idea that cops kill blacks (in particluar unarmed blacks), as you hinted at.
It definitely demonstrates that disconnect between the issue they are trying to address and the way it is being addressed. As Sam was alluding to, using a term like "woman" in a medical journal is not denying anyone's right to anything. I am sure that The Lancet is not a transphobic institution. The reporter speaks about transgender youth being denied bathroom access in some states, but how is that connected in any way to the usage of the term woman by a medical journal that is ostensibly on the side of the transgender youth looking for acceptance? They fail to recognize how that sort of dogmatic approach will cause a segment of the population to push back even harder in the opposite direction.
I don't get Sam here. If male and female refer to the sex of a person, and man and women their gender identity. Then the problem vanish. You can then call a male, a women, whitout any contradiction. Why is this such a big debate? Seems easy to me.
@@kmann100500 well, I hear about thise trans people. I have yet to meet one. They wouldn't believe themselves to be trans if they thought they where born in a body that correspond with there gender. I largely think this is where everybody talks past each other. And then some people who just won't differentiate between sex and gender. Can you find an example of a trans person saying that they change there sex, instead of there gender?
@@Dontanovizt I don't think Sam opposes your given use of male/female/man/woman but rather the overexclusivity at the sacrifice of practicality. E.g. transwomen are women but a "baby male" being a boy until it develops identity is not wrong by default. The theory says that male/female is biological and man/womanhood is purely societally constructed but considering that feeling you were "born in the wrong body" is inherently physical there must be some sexual element to it. To be honest it wasn't really that clear to me what the conversation was about at that point.
Going from 34:36 to 34:53 was like a splash of water to my face. One second I'm having this emotional experience as I listen to Sam say something really quite profound about human life and then BAM, "why do you dehumanize trans people so much?" Right back to the most virulent, venomous "gotcha" politics imaginable.
I like how calm and collected his answer was. He didn’t miss a beat, his answer seemed very articulate to me, and at the same time he was completely respectful. It seems easy but a very rare skill to possess I feel.
"I was one of those women born without a uterus." Where we went wrong is trying to undo historical and remaining lack of compassion for people so afflicted by indulging them.
@@justinutube Thanks for the constructive critique. Trying to be succinct it instead turned out oblique. It's too complex a topic for youtube one-liners. See another attempt below:
Waking Up legitimately changed my life, and in a very drastic way. It's not exaggerating to say that Sam Harris taught me the single most important skill I've ever acquired, and my life will be dramatically better because of it.
Same,I really didn't expect meditation to be as useful as sam showed me to be Not only I respect him as an intellectual voice on a lot of subjects,I also consider myself in his debt
@@jordonstlouis7117 I take it you mean these kinds of conversation topics in general. If you mean something more specific like the actual physical space in which he is having that conversation, for example, then I misunderstood your comment.
Same is a loser but you're glad he is there. Wow. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
@@2fast2block only brain washed people believe in a god, no matter what form they claim it comes in. stick to your church and its parishioners, leave the science to the scientists.
I love conversation like this. Where one side listen carefully to the other side without interruption, and counter the argument after that also without interruption.
"There is this illusion that we are not identical to experience but rather we are having experience." This thought, that I've heard expressed a thousand different ways, has never been stated so perfectly!
Well I thought Sam was perfect and he is. However there’s a level of self righteousness in him that is not appreciated, particularly when he turns his back to people like Brett Weinstein, Eric Weinstein and Gaad Saad. That’s exactly what the left want to happen for the intellectual dark web to dismantle itself.
@@dhadad9885 Saad was mocking Harris on his channel, and Harris unfollowed him on Twitter, which is completely understandable. Harris disagrees with Bret Weinstein about covid vaccines and didn't want to debate Weinstein about them (Weinstein agreed a debate would be a bad idea). He didn't abandon either of those people. I haven't heard anything regarding Eric Weinstein, but Harris is principled, and won't sacrifice his integrity for the sake of keeping friends. He's in the position of losing some because of that, and because he makes friends with disparate people in the first place, which makes friendships likelier to fail.
Great conversation. It's a shame it wasn't longer, some very interesting questions coming from the audience too. Sam continues to inspire me and make me a more thoughtful person.
Jamie, he's a joke that doesn't give much thought. He's a loser. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
Greg, you love losers. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
The term "world" is not meant in a geographical sense. Your world is different from my world... The question "what kind of world do we want to build" is really asking "what kind of lives do we want to live?" (and what must we do in order to achieve that?).
@Future Deadguy Is there a rational justification for a nation-based tribalism that puts the needs of one nation over the needs of the whole world. What makes your national identity more real or more important than your global identity as a person?
@@tinydancer2607 yes, his irrationality over Trump means his opinions are forever suspect, for, if he can be so persistently and implacably irrational on one matter, one must always wonder what other blind spots he has, what other of his ideas are mere shibboleths
Yeah, you want more of loser Sam. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
You can tell how accustomed Sam has become to long form conversations. This 30 min interview followed by 15 QnA was so rushed, you could tell Sam was only just starting to get the juices flowing and some really great trains of thought unfortuntately had to be cut short.
Good point. In spite of Sam's lack of scholarship on the positive aspects of Western Religion, Sam is a thoughtful thinker and speaker. Ironically his comments on social media and cancel culture is a commentary of short, shallow and emotional thought or thought-lacking reactive mental behavior.
@@nyworker I don’t believe Sam lacks scholarship, in regards to western religions. Having read some of his work on the topic, he seems to have dedicated a significant amount of mental energy to fully understanding their texts and subsequent meaning behind them. I’ll grant you, that he rarely acknowledges the positive aspects. However, I think that’s due to his view, that we can acquire those without the belief in a higher power.
@@nyworker Western religion, pray tell what would that be? Christianity after it was put in its place by The Enlightenment and The Scientific Revolution in Europe?
@@twntwrs Well not just Christianity but all world religions. However cannot dispel that it was Christianity and Western culture that lead to the rise of Western Thought.
The first 3 minutes of this video (Sam's answer to the first [very broad] question) is the most cogent synopsis of the current state of society I have heard. Only a great mind is able to take a question and issue that broad and synthesize it into such a concise, effective response.
Brian, Sam is bad breath to people like me who actually think, not a breath of fresh air. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
I think his "position" is rather typical but his articulation and eloquence along with his willingness to bring forth the argument, despite potential backlash is admirable
@Karl Bjornsson It requires the full context of reading entire essays and email exchanges and listening to entire podcasts (not this interview, btw) to capture the narrative. It's not a matter of: here's a list of facts, oh look he left out number 5 number 7 and number 13.
@@fightclub7829 It requires the full context of reading entire essays and email exchanges and listening to entire podcasts (not this interview, btw) to capture the narrative. It's not a matter of: here's a list of facts, oh look he left out number 5 number 7 and number 13.
I'm glad we have people like Sam Harris who are sufficiently insulated from being cancelled that they can speak out against extreme positions on both sides of the culture wars. Jonathan Haidt said it's when the extremists silence the moderates on either side that society becomes stupid. Thankfully there are some moderates who won't be silenced.
I’m so glad to see what Sam said at the very beginning of this. We weren’t ready for this level of connectivity. It feels like we’re going backwards in certain ways.
Our culture here in the US and other cultures around the world took decades and decades if not centuries to form. And often people think that by just knowing what the problems are the solutions can be implemented and absorbed by our communities over night. Generations of people will have to pass away with their indoctrinated beliefs about society and others will need to learn how to cooperate and live peacefully with others in the world before we will see significant change.
I love how Sam Harris presents the logical arguments which expose the irrationality of both sides. If only we can have a third political party based on common sense as well as compassion.
This is a great conversation. One takeaway I have is that we really need to make a habit out of not cutting speakers off due to time. In many cases, the time allotted is arbitrary and the audience really enjoys what the speaker is saying. If someone doesn't, he has the right to leave or close the RU-vid app.
Often, when it’s in a venue like a theater, your contract has a hard stop (so the staff can clean up, shut down, etc). It’s a bummer, but it’s a very real limit in having live events.
This definitely has to do with whatever rental agreement they have with the venue and not because they think the video is going to run long. Clearly a lot more he's, she's, they's, and it's would have asked questions if they had an opportunity.
Fantastic interview and an Ironically perfect first person and question from the Q&A. I could not have set that up any better. Sam is so good at what he does.
Haha, the topic of Trump is probably the only area where I would disagree on Sam with. But no one can deny that he is brilliant at articulating his mind and being very encompassing to all ideas.
On the topic of not even being able to say words in any context.... here in Ireland, the leader of our green party had to apologise for saying the N word in parliament.... even though he was only saying it because he was detailing the abuse a young black teenager had been receiving. So he couldn't even say the word to describe a crime or abusive event. Beyond childish.
I think it would be compatible with Sam's desire to have more open and rational discussions about hot-button topics like this if he would participate much more often than he does these days. It would actually lead to a more effectual discourse potentially leading to a tempering and coming together of diverse opinions to that middle ground he so craves. Sam shows competent ability to respond reasonably to touchy subjects close to people's - sometimes fanatical - political leanings without adversely triggering those individuals. More of the Q&A portion of this talk would be extremely valuable, socially speaking. Sam! In the unlikely event that you are listening; PLEASE! Do more of these.
If you think Sam is reasonable, then you show that you don't like to reason either. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
@@2fast2block Ummm, I think either you are "responding" to the wrong person or you just enjoy yelling into an empty room. What tf are you rambling about? Harris' modus operandi is pure reason - to a fault - and I am drawn to him because I too am a rational and reasoning creature. The subjects here are touchy social issues that really must be discussed in a tempered and rational way so as to allow our turbulent social cohesion to hold together. Although faith is likely one of those cohesive paths, no one even mentioned god... What "core beliefs" do you think Sam has? His various claims are only presented as theories and are sourced from experimentation and studies made under controlled conditions. The evidence you demand is presented and you can read and make up your own mind. The rest is opinion and presented as such. Every sentence about science you rattled off is a misrepresentation or a misunderstanding followed by a huge leap of faith to somehow tie that to a creator. You've formatted this like some big mike drop not realising you sound like an idiot... Do you understand the quote you took out of Sam's book? I'll unpack it for you; "It's very good to have proof to back your beliefs". By pure definition; only shallow people believe something without proof.
@@johnoneofmany "Sam shows competent ability to respond reasonably to touchy subjects close to people's -..." I show Sam is the opposite. Then..."Ummm, I think either you are "responding" to the wrong person or you just enjoy yelling into an empty room. What tf are you rambling about?" Then...YOU ramble on never addressing how you or Sam got around the science I gave proving Sam is a liar and does not follow what he preaches. If I talked to a wall, a wall has an excuse not to answer logically. You have no, excuse. you're a loser like Sam.
@@2fast2block You're funny. Why don't you get mommy to come help you with this one. Not only did I bother to take the time to unpick your incoherent pseudo-science which was completely unrelated to the argument at hand. I then schooled you on why your "science" was precisely the opposite of science. All of this (as expected when dealing with idiots such as yourself) went completely unnoticed or baffled you (or both). Simpletons like yourself think you can string together some basic science (without any actual understanding of it) and assume you can sound like you know what you're talking about... Not when you're dealing with grownups, kid. After smacking you down I thought that was it and you had scurried off to whatever rock you crawled out from under but suddenly here you are again with more nonsense and abuse (Idiots always become abusive when you put them in their place). Did it really take you A MONTH to work on that poignant, well structured and rapier-wit-like response? I would not consider myself as successful as Sam but I have done pretty well in life and career. I think maybe have a look around yourself and get a better grip on who the "loser" is around here. Thanks for the giggles, you imbecile...
He's just a loser. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
See how, during the QnA Sam flawlessly and calmly swatted down the transgender woman's accusations of enabling bigotry. Harris has a way with words that very few ppl have.
Very thought provoking and stimulating discussion (as always, when Sam Harris is involved, of course). One thing that struck me was the discussion about the *online factor* and how it strongly affects exchanges of ideas and feelings (because I'm old enough to remember what the world was like before the internet). The idea that *Anger SELLS* , and that not everyone can understand (or has the time to fully digest) things they read or hear about online. And the internet's way of making the spread of hatred and misunderstanding around so safe, because of the anonymity that it provides. As Harris said, "We will say things to one another and about one another, on social media, that we would never say face to face." I think this is something that should give people pause to consider before ranting online.
Seven minutes of this is about enough. Thanks for the heads-up, I will not be troubled by any of the other offerings from this "Neuroscientist and Philosopher". 🙄
I consider Sam my spiritual teacher. My mind can never be as appreciated and open as today if it is not because this man. It saddens me to see Sam aging.
He will be a better teacher once he acquires the *wisdom* of those who have lived long, eventful lives and drawn their own conclusions. He is on a good track :-).
Sam, why are you such a loser? There. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
min 29:50. “we have the illusion that we are not identical to experience, rather, we are having an experience, from some position in the head, as a self. There is a subject riding around in the head, we don’t feel we are bodies, we have bodies. “ we want to control consciousness.
You're talking about the Jewish Neoliberal with the same politics as the Google BOD that said "Thank's Jack" when Twitter deplatformed the current president of the United States right?
@@elingrome5853 Sam argues Neoliberal talking points on most every subject. His worldview is pretty much that of Corporate America's / NYC MSM. I was a huge fan of his 10 years ago. Coincidentally I also used to believe the NYTimes 10 years ago too.
@@BlkwtrPrk he agreed that he would prefer if Trump had his free speech, but unfortunately, Trump had too much sway. Such that before his supporters hear better arguments, if they care to listen to it, a lot of harm might have already been done. The Capitol was attacked so he may have had a point.
41:00 It seemed the young man's question about where true power lies and who really has influence was very insightful. Maybe the extreme right doesn't hold the keys to power, but maybe Sam might consider that we truly have three extremes operating today. The extreme left, the extreme right, and the extreme wealthy. Perhaps it's the extreme wealthy (those that use their wealth to corrupt governments, pillage natural resources, and commit crimes) that have more influence on government than is sustainable. And perhaps, that is problem that needs to be addressed first and foremost. Perhaps by reducing income inequality, many of these social issues become irrelevant?
“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
The thing I like the most of how Sam Harris articulates is that his choice of words has a resemblace of computer language like for instance Python ... or maybe doesn't matter which one actually. I think it is purely how he constructs his thoughts and structure his answers to any questions being thrown at him. It is pure intellectual pleasure listening to his art of debate. It starts with code. It does.
Lol at him interrupting Sam at a particularly profound point in the conversation at 32:40: Sam: "To have really healthy relationships, you have to *already* be happy. You know, I mean that's a - " Interviewer: "I'm going to ask one more question"
I listen to Sam's podcast religiously (awful choice of word) but it feels very different to see him in person speaking. There's a human behind that mega brain... bloody love him.
Careful, Sam is smart, but don't go thinking he's a genius of any sort. The evidence: numerous instances of him being intellectually embarrassed (e.g. Sean Carroll, reviews of his book The Moral Landscape, his debate with a profiling expert...).
No, you become more of a loser like he is. “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” ― Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation Yet Sam has NO evidence for his core beliefs. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. Only shallow people follow Harris.
What’s utterly sad- this might be the first time members of the audience have ever heard a sane, honest, and rational reply to a woke activist in public in almost a fucken decade.
No. I think the activist was wrong and Sam was correct in his answer. But the idea that someone trying to ask an intelligent person a really hard question and that she shouldn't do that or it's a shame she did that is wrong. Intelligence isn't about masturbation. It's about confrontation with uncomfortable truths, and uncomfortable ideas that might not be true. These need to be aired more, in a format like this. It's the only path to progress of any kind.
One particular thought, that I was left lingering with after this insightful conversation between these brilliant minds is, what is up with the miniature water bottles? Is there any practical reason? e.g. less plastic? Preventing long lines to the conference bathroom? Please, any explanations is appreciated
The thing Sam consistently gets wrong is that the distrust of institutions is not because of wokeness, it's because the institutions have been utterly captured by members of the upper class and are run for their exclusive benefit. Wokeness rides along as it is the way they cast themselves as heroes while sucking up all the treasure of society. Sam seems to intuit this in his comment about class always being strangely absent from the conversation, but the man has a massive podcast that never discusses class. I have learned a ton from him but he just seems blind to the fact that the reason it seems wokeness is taking over the world to him is that his social strata is made up entirely of these people who wear it as a shield and justification for why they deserve to earn 100x or 1000x what we do. If he were a working class person he'd hardly ever encounter this.
Yeah, wow. Never thought of it this way. In addition, These institutions were purportedly for the pursuit of truth, not a specific agenda. (Not saying that always achieved that) As such they were seen to be leaders of a society. Now its anyone's idea what they are up to. Just getting angry about one thing or another.
Being a child of the 1%'s privilege doesn't necessarily have to blind you to socioeconomic i.e. class realities (see Friedrich Engels). Unfortunately that is the case with Mr. Harris as shown by his complete failure to recognize the Trump phenomenon as a reaction to the neoliberal shafting of the working class in the US.
100% agree. Isn't there someone Harris could have a reasonable discussion about this with? I'm a big fan of his work, too, but I've stopped listening to his podcast partly because of that abscence of class in his line of argument.
You're the one concerned with profundity. I'm concerned with what's useful, pleasurable, intellectually or morally stimulating. Hence why I'm here watching this. You don't find Sam interesting. why are you here, wasting your attention
It’s too bad so much time was spent on the first person who asked a question rather than the last guy. He seemed very smart and his question was fantastic.
That's Franklin Leonard, at 42:42, creator of the renowned Hollywood Black List. Cool guy. Cool to see him engaging with Sam Harris in a semi-public forum.
The problem with America can be encapsulated in a single observation: 2 of the 3 audience members who asked questions talked about "their truths" or "my truth". This postmodernist attitude to the world, where facts no longer matter and people only argue on the basis of their own personal experience is totally redundant in modern civil discourse. It really is pointless two people debating a subject, if the terms of the debate are not agreed in advance, and this is the whole problem with social media.
I agree. A 'conversation' with such a person is rather like trying to discuss orbital mechanics with someone who thinks the earth is flat. It's not that one does not wish to; it's that it's not possible.
I actually like this relativism, but instead of the "no thruth", it would be better a "many facts" idea. Everyone is incapsulated in their own ideology and bias so naturally they will be slave to their interpretations and interpretations of others, which almost anything has. But discussions are still viable to test people convictions and ideas, where everyone will learn something and some people might revaluate their worldviews.
No way to decide what is truth for some people as they will always roadblock the truth that doesn't adhere to their rigid beliefs. Any fact regarded as truth can easily be dismissed as being untrue...the earth is flat to some people wouldn't matter if you showed them pictures taken from an astronaut is space they will say the pictures are fake.
@@Consciousness_of_Reality ok but what you're arguing for isn't really acceptance of "many facts", it's more how we prioritise the value of facts against observation. If we can't agree on what truth is then we are totally doomed. It's easy to like the idea of many facts, but where the rubber meets the road it's simply not an effective use of time to debate whether 1+1 equals 2. And the problem is that this is exactly what these people are doing - they're saying that reality isn't important, what's important is how I feel about something. And this could change at any time to any thing (based on whether I've had a cup of coffee or not or something equally as effective as changing my perception), which makes it totally meaningless. This is why we live in an age of science - science is the most effective tool we have for correcting for human bias.
@@maynardgent6708 I like relativism more because it opens to different views and make people wiser and much more open minded. There are many perspectives and ways to think, but one has to be more dominant, but it has to be just a convention, just like the international system in physics, there are many measures you can take, but for less confusion, one has to be chosen, because then it would be a mess. Relativism is also interesting to open to new avenues of thinking, it really opens your mind and makes people more understanding and compassionate. Relativism should be more as a tool used to hear others opinions and reach to a valid conclusion. about science, sorry to say, but science is the same thing, you cannot know what you are seeing is 100% real, our 5 senses are flawed, doubting science can be a great thing, not to be a flat earther (although they can be right) but to be a skepticist. This is all about methaphysics, but science has to make many assumptions and conventions so that it can function. I have many complaints about science, their arrogance and humanism are disgusting. I myself am a free thinker, I think for myself, and a lot of things I think are against science, but it doesnt mean they dont make sense. Frankly, there are almost to none things to trust, I dont trust in anything, the only real thing for me is nihilism and cosmicism, I myself am a huge cosmicist, I took Lovecraft idea and expanded it to the limits, I created many theories and worldviews that are completely against science. Cosmicism is between religion and science, I will write a book about it, and will introduce and expand it to the world, for the best of humanity.
Why is it that conversations like this that is genuinely interesting and enlightening always has to be cut short or had been allocated too little time? Why not let them run their course so we get to the roots of the issues. For example the dialogue with the trans woman was one that really needed to be had and yet..... "sorry sorry.... we don't have time, next question please" and then it's the same: "Sorry, next question".
That was going nowhere anyway… Sam knocked it out of the park, and per usual, they were going to come back with something about how their birth certificate shouldn’t specify sex… no thank you
He's also got a series of podcasts called absolutely mental with Ricky Gervais. I haven't listened to it but I'm sure Ricky must get him laughing hard a few times.
Sam's been brilliant at owning his platform. I subscribe and feel people should support with their $ those who take steps to preserve their ability to speak freely.
On being divided: We might want to take a look at Mitchell Silver's new philosophy. "Rationalist Pragmatism: A Framework on Moral Objectivism" His book was published just last July 2020. Silver's practical applications was on Urbanism. But we might want to take a look at its possible implications on EDUCATION, psychology (personality psychology, cognitive psychology to A.I., and existential psychotherapy. A specific, new philosophy for A.I. may arise here), sociology, economics, politics, and across all other fields. Especially for Filipinos.
The 'woman born without a uterus' at the beginning of the question period didn't seem to hear a word of the dialogue. I'm surprised she didn't give her pronouns...
But i think the philosophical point she/he was making is correct even though not realizing. Almost exclusively social denigration in terms of racism etc starts with missuse of words and bad jokes done often in trivial situations. Morality is a social construct fundamentally no matter how you think about it.
@@adriancioroianu1704 language is a social construct and it is fluid. Misuse of words is a difficult concept from a philosophical pov because if the collective starts to use a word in a different context and attaching different meaning to it, is it then still misuse? No, it is transformation of language. But the problem a lot of people take offence to is that transgender people are a super small minority. People are not unreasonable or unwilling to be compassionate and empathic with an actual transgender person they meet. The problem they do have is having to change their language by force because a group who claims to speak on behalf of all transgenders are basically like a gangster mob. It is not unreasonable to assume someone's pronoun because most people associate with the pronoun which is in line with their sex/gender/gender expression. It is not unreasonable to use the words women or man in conversation, an article, a tweet, a post, whatever. The pedantic behaviour of some of these woke people trigger a severe backlash from people who would have been their allies if they were not getting bullied into beliefs and behaviour they don't believe in.
I used to hate Sam. I didn’t think we should we should think his way because he was breaking the beauty of our world. But now I see even more beauty after understanding what he argues. Amazing. From a long time hater, life time fan.
Sams answer about the self was amazing! This reminds me of the Consciousness Explained by Dan Dennett. Are there more videos or books by Sam where he elaborates more about this concept of no self and happiness, tranquility being prior to peak performances?
Not that it really matters and not that Mr.Sam cares that much..or actually he perhaps did in that moment...but how can the 'headspace app' thing happen...like this guy is preparing for the interview for several days i guess and does not investigate such a simple info that i believe is a great accomplishment of Sam I am sure he is very proud of...
