His lack of knowledge and disregard for philosophy leads him to the bias of thinking that the truths of spirituality and morality are either determined scientifically, or are either completely relativistic and void of any meaning, which is a point that lacks any sort of nuance. I liked him a few years back but lost interest when I saw that his ideas were already expressed hundreds of years ago and were already pretty well criticized back then too. His meditation stuff is pretty cool tho
but they are determined scientifically. Because science is.. well everything. And the truths of spirituality are part of everything just the same. Science simply explains the natural world in ways we can understand. The truths of spirituality are part of that natural world.
@@Fuar11 Not all knowledge and not all facts are scientific. There is no amount of empirical testings you could do to determine that science is the only form of knowledge, and empirical tests don't tell you why a state is preferable to another. If you deem something to be good, it wasn't neutrally derived from hypothetico-deductive method, you'd have to have assumptions about why things are good or bad, even when it comes to why science is more valuable than other things. A value judgement like that on science isn't derived from just empirical testing either, you'd have to get it from a form of dialectical rationality. Not everything rational is scientific.
@@Fuar11 you cannot define morality scientifically. Science is a tool for predicting the behavior and features of the natural world. But it is just one tool in a whole set. By only using Science as our reference point for everything, we take a large chunk of nuance and depth from our lives.
Harris is very occupied with the world of phenomena. From the perspective of traditional Ch'an or Zen precepts he is engaged in fantasy and delusion (妄想/虚幻). In terms of mindfulness, I'd say he is a fairly good promoter of modern western approaches to functional meditation. People tend to misuse Chinese cultural terms like Ch'an and Dao. That was really the energy of my comment, not a criticism of Harris at all.
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe Zen is a specific sect of Buddhism originating in Japan. He's never been to Japan to learn afaik. It was said he he learner primarily in India, so not Zen.
He is what Nietzsche picks out and destroys in Beyond Good and Evil. Edit: I see that I have caused a lot of people to be confused since I have not specified what I mean. I had the part "we scientists" from "Beyond Good and Evil" in mind. So many people have, in some way or another, outlined what I mean in the replies.
Sam Harris, despite being an atheist, still grounds his 'scientific' ethics in the moral feelings that come from Christianity. Humanism is just Christianity without the God to sanction it. Edit: He'd probably agree with the assertion "God is dead", but wouldn't think all too deeply about the consequences this has on the old moral worldview we inherited. Take for example: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Without a 'creator', this moral 'truth' is not at all "self-evident". Without the idea of a 'soul', which every man could be in equal possession of, there is no steady basis for 'equality', or even, for that matter, no basis for why men _ought_ to be equal. The list goes on and on until there's no solid foundation in this world for any moral value and we're left with nothing, that is to say, Nihilism. Sam Harris basically ignores all this and says: 'lol science stronk!'
This meant a lot to me in a time when my mother is turning to religion a lot more in her fight against cancer and I am really trying to figure out what "doing good" means in my own life. Thank you :)
You forgot to say, " If nobody can really agree on what someone has said, have they said anything at all?" It's too good of a catchphrase to let go so soon.
I always thought about the name in a more philosophical manner, as if, even though he tries to achieve a truthful knowledge and understanding, this task always becomes harder and harder to do, and by the end of the day, his effort has amounted to no result, and he has to start again.
Everything is futile. Even if you manage to push the rock up the hill you'll come to realize that it was really just a futile act to find meaning, as you found no meaning once the task was completed. It's hypothetically possible that the entire world could be informed, but so what if it ever happens? The real futility isn't in informing people, it's actually in the reason you do it
it's wierd seeing intellectuals i grew up with being talked about like this. almost as surreal as seeing technology you grew up with behind panes of glass in a museum
Hearing him bring up Sam's exit from the IDW felt most weird for me. That was one month ago. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lmcdu6B_YUU.html
Yes, I believe that this channel should grow to the stars, but what problems would arise from that? We would probably get "egirls" and "eboys" that read 5 chapters of Nietzsche and thought "this guy makes a good point of nihilism, man, life doesn't matter so I'm going to be an a*shat because so." Am I gatekeeping? Maybe so. Just what I think though.
@@yeah4710 But getting the egirls and eboys allows them to move beyond those five chapters of Nietzsche by hearing that there is something more -- by having their belief in their own abilities challenged. I welcome anyone to channels like this. If they stick around it's because they are learning something. If they leave -- well, fine, but they probably won't unsubscribe and that boosts the channel.
"...and despite the ability for science to explain why and how things interact and exist, it is yet to be convincingly argued that science can tell us what we should do in any universal sense. This is perhaps the greatest issue of Sam Harris: that in his pursuit of a simplified and objective solution to our moral problems, he may find himself repeating the very same dogmatic biases that he has criticized so often in religious practice" MY FAV PART
@@Paradoxonification lmao the appeal to science as if science is a God of sorts. The video talks about Harris talking about worldviews that betray science. How the fuck do you betray science? Is it an organization one has sworn an oath to?
Always flabbergasted at how much work you put into these. The research, the script, the animations, all my comments on your videos end up being the same: I love your content so much
@@vinny5638 The specific urge about my specific fret - yes ;) However to pass up an opportunity to converse with likeminded people was.. an urge I was unable to pass up. :)
I like the way Harris described a basis for morality by imagining a universe where every conscious being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible (a hypothetical he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone")- if the words "evil" or "bad" can be objectively applied anywhere, it's there. There's literally no worse outcome. The thinking is that an objective moral compass will point in the opposite direction of that hypothetical.
Personally I don't think Harris creates or spreads any islamophobia, especially on that Ben Affleck interview, I believe those where valid criticism of Islam, the same way someone would criticize Christianity or any other religion.
True. I wonder how many of those leftist Islam apologists have actually read Quran. Here in Iran, The majority of the younger generation are actually trying to spread Islamophobia, and we feel justified for doing so. There's very little to defend about Islam anyway.
@@arumyn3070 when it comes to the western world a lot of people are bigoted against Muslims, in the case of the USA those people are mostly conservative Christians, being bigoted towards a certain group of people is clearly a bad thing, however the same can said about countries that have a majority Muslim population, the governments of these countries are bigoted towards people who don't conform to their beliefs ( i.e Kurds, shia's if it's a Sunni majority country and vice versa), and I believe it's fair to say that most people that practice Islam as a religion are conservative with their beliefs and ideas, so there's not much difference between a conservative Christian and a conservative Muslim.
The question Harris asks is "Are we good people? or evil. But every side in every conflict ever has believed themselves to be noble. At the end of the day his test is not objective but subjective.
These videos on contemporary thinkers (if you can call them that) have been great. I really appreciate the balance, and objectivism you provide in your videos!
Very concise and accurate. There's too much emphasis on his criticisms however. Someone not familiar with Sam already, might disdain him after watching this video.
I just recently got back on YT and damnn my friend, ur channel grew so big. Happy that many are now latching onto this once hidden gem of a channel. Keep the bangers coming!!
Science, although fact, is still man-made. It derives from the same neurological activity that fuels conclusions that Harris believes should tell us how we ought to live. And science is an ever-evolving field, so we'd have a hard time defining morality with that kind of fluidity. You also can't just draw a line somewhere in the middle when it comes to people's well-being, since every individual experiences reality in a different way and although some respones to our everydays might be similar they are never the same. "The world is far more complicated than he would like."
It's a dopmain response in your brain. What have you learned? Did you engage with the content or just consume it? Think for yourself. Make examples, maybe even play it through in your imagination.... Thats when your mind adapts and grows.. at least thats what is the most logical view for myself. No offense, just being conscious... ;)
You’re putting out amazing content !! You should maybe look into non-english characters too, Antonio Escohotado and his discussion of the relationship between the state and narcotic regulation and its impact on people
harris think the objectivity of morality is "as objective as" the objectivity of health. He doesn't need to resolve the is/ought issue. He is simply claiming science effectively objectively leads to a definition of morality that can be commonly agreed upon in most issues, and such morality of well being should be the one that matters... similar to the definition of health.
@Osman Oglu " Please due note that nothing is as black and white as being "good and bad" or "good vs bad" " Sam harris never makes such claim. Of course, there is morally grey area...similar to there are grey area for health (there can be tradeoff where better health is ambiguous. For instance, quality of health versus longevity of health).
@Osman Oglu Sam Harris is actually not a reductionist. I'm a physics grad student focusing on condensed matter physics myself. I can assure you that science doesn't mean reductionism AT ALL. Even the most foundationally discipline like physics, is NOT reductionist. You can create high-level phenomenological theories to explain things without invoking the details of, neurology in our context. There is a difference between "in principle" and "in practice". Sam Harris is saying that IN PRINCIPLE law of physics (and higher level laws of chemistry, biology, and neurosciences) can predict actions' consequences of well being. According to this objective relation between actions and well being, morality can be defined (and it is "as objective as" health). However, Sam Harris is not arguing we have to go back to quantum field theory to make prediction of actions. He is NOT a reductionist. He argues that from this foundation, we can create high-level theory of well being as a proxi, and people can agree upon it. For instance, from different types of studies we can find being gay doesn't have negative consequences on gays themselves and people around them (this study serve as a proxi). Then according to Harris moral framework, we can objectively conclude being gay is not immoral. You can have high-level empirical phenomelogical result (as proxi)...without using the reductionist law of physics to predict things.
@Osman Oglu "where did I say or even hint at that I believe that science is reductionist?" I thought your critic of sam harris is that he reduce everything to using law of physics to predict negative consequences on well being. I thought your critique is that this reductionist approach is in practical/impossible. If you mean this, then you are simply representing harris' idea wrong. But apparently you didn't mean this. You were not making an specific argument, you were simply making an accusation that Harris oversimplifies things... okay let's now look at your new arguments 1. here is your first specific argument: "Which is why you might believe that being a homophile does not pose any "negative consequences", but someone else would believe it does" Harris think we can find a commonly agreed upon parameters like happiness, peacefulness, and such...and we CHOOSE to value this (similar in health, we CHOOSE to value longevity and such). Once we agree upon these set of things, we can objectively show being gay has no negative consequences on well being. What you said about "someone else would believe it does" makes no sense. The whole point is we need to reduce complicated judgement of morality to a common set of basic agreed upon values. Can you give me one potentially way of how others being gay affect people's well being? Remember you can't just assert it does, you have to reduce to things that fundamentally affect your well being. 2. "Using simple "observations" as empirical data is not very wise. Using such "observations" to argue that, hence X must be good via proxy of this one simple assessment I personally observed, is bound to be wrong." That's how science works. People find old knowledge to be wrong and they can improve upon them. The more correction people find, the closer their proxi is too the exact result. This is an honest description of how human knoweldge progress. Trying to figure out an ultimate conclusion in one-go is just wishful thinking/ intellectual masturbation (if you are scientists, you would know this). Gradually approaching the truth is honest (not wishful thinking/lying to yourself) and IT WORKS. 3. "I had ingestion problems. I observed, empirically might I add, that smoking a fag resolved the issue, hence, smoking cigarettes is good for your health with no negative consequences via proxy of my empirical findings. Do you concur?" No. No one said your conclusion has to be simple like "smoking cigarettes is good for your health". It can be complicated like "smoking can be good if it can resolve negative consequences on your well being that is orignated from other health problem". If your situation can be demonstrated to occur to many people. Then we have empirical result that show smoking cigarette can be good in specific situation. Also you are showing Harris point here... you are showing health is also not absolutely objective (there are grey areas and there are trade offs). Harris is arguing morality (based on well being) can be as objective as health. In the sense, we can have a commonly agreed set of value and we can objective see how actions leads to those consequences, and we can make tradeoff and make health/moral judgement. Everything else you said are either claims...or repeatition of the 3 points I addressed here. Please address them one by one, if you have counter arguments.
Sam occupies this interesting space where he knows just enough about a subject and is eloquent enough to impress laypeople, but when you push him on literally anything or talk to any experts in philosophy/ethics/religion/history/neuroscience you find that there’s not much there there. The pivot to an app for meditation is pretty on brand for a ‘guru’ type. He’s good with rhetoric, not much else.
Yeah, actually referring to him as a Neuroscientist is an insult to Neuroscientists. He bought his PhD from a family friend and didn't even write the two papers he's credited as author on, according to statements his lab mates made to journalists. His mentor was a pretty big guy in the world of fMRI, so I'm sure he picked up some things, but he hasn't published since he left his program. Speaking as a Neuropsych PhD student, I don't know any other neuro folks that even know who he is, or if they do, they don't know he claims to be a Neuroscientist. He has the habit of gaining just enough credentials to say "I'm An AuThOrItY" without doing the actual work to be an authority on anything.
I won't lie I'm not a fan of Sam Harris. I think he's an intelligent guy that's extremely rigid in his views, but mostly I just find him very disrespectful and condescending to others with differing opinions. Maybe I've not seen enough of his work, but have struggled to appreciate his views, even if I think he has some interesting points.
Nah, this is a bug/feature of his brand of atheism. I agree with the sentiment that ideas dont need to be respected. However there are ways to communicate that stuff without being a bad atheist stereotype.
No idea where my long winded probably gibberish comment on religion went. Accidentally posted before I finished. Point being this: much harm is caused not by religious ideas and religions themselves, rather the perversion of their ideas, and the figureheads who used these religions to mislead followers into paths of destruction Religion has done great good in the world. It can provide the lonely, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the meek, with hope and strength in times of suffering. It doesn’t matter that San Harris thinks it’s a crock of shit. To the devout, its real and sacred and helps them move through life with dignity and hope, makes them stronger, and enables them to hold onto their humanity during the most hellish experiences. For every author of a great book about surviving suffering, there V are an uncounted number whose lives were made easier, and whose characters were strengthened, and whose self worth and humanity were galvanized by faith, their own, and /or others. Will we render meaningless the faith of Anne Frank because of her end? Or put her strength down to favorable neurobiology? That dishonors her, neurologically she is unique, and her religion, which gave her and countless others faith and hope and courage, and inspires the same in generations, may be biologically generated, but it is not preordained, and you cannot convince me that it is a bad thing.
loving these modern thinker videos, dont know how this channel aint more popular. Swear me and half my mates have come to these videos independtly, and yet time this channel aint getting the traction it deserves. just a matter of time i guess, keep it up lad
Personally, I'm not afraid to admit that I am a huge fan of Sam Harris. I was raised in Islam and I found him in my young adult life when I began to doubt my faith. Although I disagree with his criticism and find his approach to be more problematic then it is helpful, I cannot deny his contribution did the general discourse on the matter or my on liberation. As an ex Muslim atheist, his sharp criticisms were a breath of fresh air. The Moral Landscape is generally what I believed to be the best approach towards morality in a secular worldview. As a mixed martial artist, I can empathize with his methodic way of thinking to achieve a specific concrete goal. I also appreciate his spreading of mindfulness through exercising meditation because it was secular meditation that help me confirm that prayer has no effect on my life. Secular meditation was the control group of the tests I was running and my life as I begin trying different religions to find the truth. I still practice meditation to this day and I do not miss religion one bit because of it and because of him. Sam Harris and his writings and podcasts help me find purpose and meaning when I felt I was losing them forever.
Sam Harris may be a sloppy philosopher but he's at least using his persuasive skills to bring a more equal, secular, and scientific viewpoint into the mainstream.
I’d say that whilst his metaphysical claims and ethical claims may be a bit lacking, I think he really does well when it comes to self help and politics. He provides a very pragmatic way of self improvement based in science whilst also not shying away from helpful spirituality. When it comes to politics I also find him to be rather introspective. He avoids falling into the pitfalls of the left whilst also solidly arguing for liberalism (European meaning) and strong public services.
I know he isn’t respected in academic circles but Harris actually got me interested in philosophy of mind when I came across one of his talks on free will.
@@terrorismisokaysometimes because he makes basic mistakes, use arguments that have been "debunked" and ignores an entire field and use "because it must" as a pillar ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wxalrwPNkNI.html
@@RetiredInThailand ye, feel like a lot of people initially get interested in mainstream public speakers only to discover their guy have no idea what hes talking about, i think its a part of the journey
@@Yellow.1844 Oh wow here I find myself arguing in the comment section at 3 am. However, I really feel the need to stand by my man Harris. I actually read his stuff before looking into his reputation, and I find his clarity of thinking refreshing. I think people often judge him too early, tryna counterbalance that a bit.
Like that the existence of the WPME scenario as an accepted endpoint of a spectrum of morality would simply be an "is" and would not substantiate the existence of an equal and opposite endpoint which would be considered a moral "ought"?
Really enjoyed how you demonstrated his argument against the 'bad side' of religion can come full circle showing the hypocrisy in an individual who critiques it and engages in similarly critiqued behavior and yet at the same time you remained open enough to acknowledge him as a potentially positive driving force for new ways of thinking about how to 'better' spirituality and religion in regards to their clear denials of metaphysics. I love this seemingly objective discourse you curate that allows the viewer cognitive space to internally debate without needing to immediately come to any conclusions in order to track what is explained.
I would like to say this demonstration is refreshing in a world still full of individuals who behave like they need to pick a side and defend it, so, thank you.
I'm not a huge fan of him, his interactions on twitter have revealed his incredibly sensitivity to opposing ideas, he blocks anyone with the slightest of critiques, no matter how respectful the opposer is
I would love for you to do an overview of eastern philosophy and specifically buddhism at some point. It's extremely fascinating stuff. While we westerners are still tackling the non-transcendent atheist worldview that is arising and how we can create new values, certain parts of Asia have made emptiness their home since a long time via zen buddhism. Aside from the buddha himself, less known figures (to non-bufdhists) like Nagarjuna and Dogen are amazing too. And it's interesting how something like zen buddhism brakes our western philosophical categories. Also someone who connects buddhism with brain science in a more intriguing way is Thomas Metzinger.
So basically he is a utilitarian who thinks we can consistently and reliably define, measure, and recreate situations that maximize wellbeing. Despite that the same thing can be greatly pleasing to one person and torture to another. Some people love the isolation of living out in the woods of Alaska. Some love the business of crowds in cities. Both of these people would hate to swap lives.
I have to say that this video is a genuinely informational video that presented a balanced and intersectional look at Sam Harris. I thought that he was no more than a slightly more intellectual Jimmy Dore before watching, but I now believe that he is a nuanced thinker and not a grifter by any means. Great video!
You shouldn't have included the Ben Affleck interview in this video. He had nothing of value to say and completely embarrassed himself, the way you presented it wasn't fair, even if it was brief.
I appreciate Harris' takes on science and morality, because it provides a unique outlook on philosophy that is needed to encourage discussion. However, I find Harris' takes on Islam to be deplorable. Sam Harris argues towards the idea Muslim immigration should be repressed with bogus opinions like the fact that they're not willing to accept our cultural norms. I would like the raise the point that they don't have to accept any cultural norms, they don't even need to speak our language. A good Muslim is one who stays Muslim, after all. As a high schooler enrolled in JROTC, there are many Muslims in my class despite American aggression against Muslim nations. Our Cadet Battalion Commander is Muslim, and her brother who is also my friend is just like everybody else, except for his refusal to eat pork at a ball one time. This goes to prove that Muslims do integrate within Europe and America the same way white people do into darker countries, with dignity and grace but also with acceptance in hopes of having a better future in foreign lands. Sam Harris' lies repeat old white man's burden talk but with a cynical twist; the argument used to justify colonialism in and around the 1800's. It was once thought that white people simply had to accept their racial and religious superiority and to try to rule other races for their own good, while Harris believes basically the same but thinks the best way to coexist with Muslims is to eradicate their presence in western society. These arguments are genocidal and objectively wrong at worst, and repetitions of old white man's burden rhetoric at best.
It's funny how so many 'public philosophers' don't actually have postgraduate degrees in philosophy, but other subjects like neuroscience or psychology.
@@priyanshusen2973 Subjects originally weren't separated as they are now, and fields like physics and biology came under the class of 'natural philosophy'. However, nowadays, doing a phd in neuroscience does not mean that you will have studied any of the literature of ethics for example. If Harris only discussed the philosophy of mind, that could be justifiable, but venturing into moral philosophy when you don't have a background in it is questionable. Same goes for Jordan Peterson, his phd in psychology doesn't mean that he's an expert on Marxism/postmodernism and yet he seems to hold some strong opinions on it.
@@tdogg1515 yes Peterson does have his PhD in psychology however he was very focused on the psychology surrounding Marxism and how the psychology of the individual led to those ideologies and revolution. So I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have an expertise in that field.
Great video, although I'm not sure if your last point on Sam's philosophy not answering what we should do in any unversal sense falling into the same problem as religion makes sense. His approach is not to be prescriptive about what we should do, but a guiding compass for at least what we shouldn't do. Agree that there's still a lot of white space between that and some of the more comforts of dogmatic religion, but it at least allows for flexibility and hopefully driving towards better local maxima on step at a time
@@LibraryofGnosis Yeah, and even worse, in place of that other 10% of cakey goodness he poured himself a big glass of 'singling out a group of people to blame'...
@@vitstwo7623 Islam, if he can stretch logic to manage it in any way, he has. I'm not gonna go so far as to call the man a bigot or anything, it never seems /hateful/ to me, just like a solution he trys to fit into problems.
@@reidwallace4258 I don’t know if I’m looking into it too much, but you and the comments hating on Harris for what he said about Islam seem very sheepish, like when someone mentions anything about Feminism and it’s suddenly sexist or something. Like people hear the words “Islam” and “bad” and suddenly Harris is a Trump rally Incel. From this video alone, it seems like all Harris said was that the outdated cultural values of Islam (like how they treat women for instance) have no place in modern society. I read one of Harris’ book, but otherwise I don’t know much about him so I’m not really a fanboy, but I feel like people are acting sheepish so I wanted to comment.
The Ben Affleck-Sam Harris debate is the most hilarious thing I have ever seen. Afflict got lot of hate after that becausehe was not well read on something he was arguing about. It was sort of virtue signaling. But I laughed alot😂😂
I think the actual wizard is the best one, plus the more cool and useful, then the trosko neocon he was really good debating, then Dawkins he was the meme inventor.
Sam Harris has been drifting in and out ‘of his own mind’ for thirty years now, and I think you can tell? His distinctive, soporific tone is hypnotic to some …and a sedative to others. He spent most of his early career being a bully. Around other ‘inspiring’ bullies. And we all instinctually know… if you’ve bullying tendencies - there’s something wrong with you. He's a devoted advocate of meditation and mediates several times a day. No wonder Harris needs multiple daily rests from himself. To turn away from those inner traits that he doesn’t like to face. From his seething ‘hatred of Islam’ to his bizarre ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ There is an inner anger within this outwardly quiet person ...that is surely palpable. There is a youthful arrogance… in the idea that you can right all societal wrongs. It takes a certain amount of time to learn that all notions of social progress… are just pathways on a plateau, there is no elevation, no higher ground to attain. We are not advancing up a metaphorical mountain… to some sort of apex of knowledge and wisdom. To believe in an unalterable and inevitable advancement ( if we just take this path, or that one. ) of western society is an illusion. No matter how much our societies socially condition us to believe otherwise. There will always be 'religion' and politicians we may despise... trying to belittle or even destroy them with your intellect and verbal bulling skills will never solve this eternal dilemma. If Mr.Harris knows this… he also knows that it doesn’t sell books, or fill lecture halls. But you can always buy his meditation app… if you also need a break from being yourself.
Wow, do you not see the irony of the comment you wrote? So much vitriol. When has he been a bully? Can you provide an example? Edit: if you think that meditation is “a break from yourself”, it only shows that you don’t understand it. An essential part of meditation is to intentionally focus on your own thoughts and emotions, to study yourself. It can be extremely painful, but also educational, I genuinely advice you to try it sincerely.
Great video! I've always had a like/hate relationship with him and this video reminded me of the whys. I know it's a long shot but a Bookchin video would be amazing!
Interesting way of making animations. Looks easy. And I can draw, kind of. You've inspired me buy a graphic tablet and start my own channel now. Different topics though.
I find I don't disagree with Sam Harris, and yet I disagree with the way he goes about things. He reminds me of a 15 year old atheist who has a platform. Worst of all, he reminds me of me if I hadn't grown out of that
I think Sam Harris is really great in some aspects, especially with his “pragmatic spiritualism”. Since spiritualism is so often argued for with pseudoscience or outright lies, it is refreshing to see someone arguing for the very real benefits of spirituality through rationality and scientific reason. He provides an important aspect to the lives of people more inclined toward skepticism which I can really appreciate. I also find his political views to be very interesting too (granted I tend to lean rather liberal socially, and somewhat towards moderat social democracy economically (social corporatism to be precise). In conclusion: Sam Harris is one of the thinkers I most strongly agree with although I do think some of his philosophical takes can be a bit one dimensional.
Exactly. Also, trying to justify the ilegal invasions of Iraq and Afganistán saying, "when religious radicals get Guns, bad things happen" is pretty cringe bro.
I always thought that Sam Harris was a Scientist who spoke out against religion. This shows how effective his self branding and marketing is. In reality, he is a philosopher for the masses, who dabbled in psychedelics and Eastern thought before cashing in on being a celebrity Atheist. His brief foray in Neuroscience provided him with credentials as an authority. Hats off to the guy for the amount of work he put in to this, but we should always remember that he is an Atheist missionary first and a scientist second.
Thanks for including the critiques. All of them are correct. Sam is really your standard positivist with a twist of non-duality and non-self, meaning he has all the hallmarks of positivist errors while acting like a poor man's Derek Parfit (he only gets to this status owing to the probable wisdom brought by years in India and Nepal). There's a reason why positivism is a dead term, but he just revives it with all its flaws and its wounds, like a zombie. As Blackburn says, all he really does is bad philosophy, which by his account should include his 11 years of wasted time in India and Nepal, and this leads him easily to attribution error, which is a thing that religious people do when they get prejudiced to other sects, denominations, religions, or nonreligious person, which can otherwise be known as "turning the other cheek only for people you already favor." If anyone wants to listen to a philosopher-scientist who is not a bit of a joke (no matter how sincere Harris is in his secular humanism, this will remain true), Daniel Dennett is good, so is Tim Maudlin, Massimo Pigliucci, and a few others. His "word game" critique is an excuse to not do due diligence, like the kid who says the dog ate his homework. As for Islam, he's only correct, because he gives an ahistorical and incomplete picture, and the critique of him is also correct. He tends to dilute ethical issues into simplicity and he becomes as blind to his own dogmatism as the Islamists. Also, Ben Affleck is just a smudge liberal, who in that exchange with Harris, proved Harris correct in his blindspot even as he was pointing out obliquely Harris's dogmatism. Lastly, what is wrong with Harris is that he hasn't grappled with the Two Dogmas of Empiricism like Quine, to which Davidson added a Third Dogma, unlike Daniel Dennett who did the relevant intellectual hard work. Quine and Dennett are empiricists, and Davidson is a rationalist. At the very least, Dennett himself has learned thanks to recent good science, that cultural values are not universal, and thus one cannot be paternalistic to other cultures without risking being imperialistic, which is a fundamental flaw that many secular humanists, atheists, and wannabe naturalists still possess.
I said this some time ago and i will say it again: I am very grateful to be contemporan and live in an era era when i have access to such an incredible thinker as Sam Harris. He cleared my mind, my anxieties and expanded my horizons in a way that no other thinker did.
Thank you for this. I've been an in and out fan of Sam. I keep hoping that Sam Harris would come out of his own conformation bias and see the struggle from the left's perspective a bit better. When I read the Moral Landscape I came away with a feeling of a book that was rushed and not thourouly thought out. He unwillingly (I guess) became beloved by conservative voices because of his writing and thinking. His denouncing of himself from the IDW will not win over a left that routinely clubbers him on Twitter. What Sam probably needs is another trip to Nepal to meditate. I root for him but his extreme hatred for the left is his moral failing which is a contradiction of himself.
