Such a great content creator, golden find.

Sam Harris being an intellectual is debatable, his book is a joke kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rd6Rn9WotbTPfn0.html

lol imagine if Sisyphus ended these videos by accurately predicting how these guys die

Cuck philosophy are just furious Marxists.

@Irish Jester Your username conflicts deeply with how well thoughtout, intelligent and reasonable your comment appears to be.

@Christian Bordelon It's like anything. Like Sam Harris is Harry Styles and Neitzsche is Alice in Chains.

Yes! Do Noam Chomsky!

Kind of shocked we haven't got Chomsky yet, he's probably the most popular living philosopher if not the most important

I imagine there might be a 'build up' to Mr. Chomsky.

yes please!

yessssss

Sam Harris is a real life example of the "Dreamworks face"

Please watch ' 9/11 explained in 5 Minutes' . The video was released in 2016. And of course US govt is innocent right? 🤦‍♀️

@@FreePalestine_____ wtf?

Please watch ' 9/11 explained in 5 Minutes' . The video was released in 2016 but very less views. And of course US govt is innocent right? 🤦‍♀️

@@FreePalestine_____ when did they say america is innocent lol

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.

@@Fuar11 you just made a declaration of faith by saying science is everything.

@Christian Bordelon Every single one of you completely misunderstood my comment

Most down-to-earth philosopher today

When I was young I thought the two were the same people

@@johannesvonmalos7505 same

You should hear sams ben stiller story

Well they're from the same tribe

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

For me it’s simply a way of showing appreciation towards Camus. But idk

I could get into this. Any elucidation would be excellent.

could you please elaborate?

@@orangedalmatian cosigned

Elaborate!!! 4 the ppl

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!'

yea didn't see anything zen about him whatsoever

To be at ease with being is a trademark of Zen, is it not?

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.

He mainly practices Dzogchen

@@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.

Replying for the satisfaction of the algorithm

I like this idea.

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.

Yep

@@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.

BLUE STEEL

Agree, I was growing frustrated by his very obvious bias, glad it was mentioned

At what point did he appeal to authority as his foundation for morality? Completely stupid point.

@@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?

Is this sarcastic? If it's not, he's just been uploading a lot of these videos lately

wouldn't really say he is "fond"

@@joostietoost4220 I am just making a joke boi

Nah its not on him, Harris is in no way a philosopher, hes just a public speaker

"philosophers."

Bro I would love Sam hyde, or better yet conner O malley

@@zuthula3847 meaningless to you!

@@zuthula3847 cringe

​@@zuthula3847 Me big brain, me only listen popular big men!!

Not sure it’s a good idea to give publicity to mass murderers

Yeeessss

Elaborate!

I was fretting over Zen. Then I let the urge to comment about it drift down the stream on a leaf.

@@aydenr5467 ... or did you?

@@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. :)

@@aydenr5467 And one you should never pass up indeed :) much love

Oh I do

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... ;)

Yeah, but that's academics for you lol

I thought it was only me who thought like this... As a muslim viewer, yes i have no choice but to wish to disdain him.

​@@Vy-if3zdThe question is,do you WILL to disdain him?

I mean what else do you want? A video that only praises him and calls any criticism against him an unfair attack or antisemitic?

He addresses this. It’s good by definition. If you think your own well-being isn’t necessarily good then you need therapy, not philosophy.

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.

Naah dude

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.

Islamophobia is a good thing. Spread it all over!

@@arumyn3070 theres 1.8 billion muslims 😂. If they were all following horrible ideas I don't think the remaining billions would sleep at night.

@@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.

Sucks 2 b u

America: *Fucks up Islamic countries* America again: Why are they becoming more fundematalist?

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.

The US isn’t the biggest cause of Islamic Fundamentalism.

@@josszarnick2393 yes

@@josszarnick2393 the US funded osama in the end of the Cold War to fight Russia and support the corrupted shah of Iran leading to the ‘79 revolution.

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.

y e s !

This comes to mind: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rd6Rn9WotbTPfn0.html

@LiL Speng accurate. Or maybe atheist Deepak. Regardless, it’s a marketable brand.

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.

@@wjpmitchell3 sounds about right.

Why isn't he respected?

That's fine. David Ick got me interested in 'One World Order' and 'hidden elite control of society' issues (Ick's still a complete psychotic idiot.)

@@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 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rd6Rn9WotbTPfn0.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.

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

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"?

Na.

@@dewdop ya.

@@shyman3000 ok.

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.

Yes! Khalil Gibran

Which is funny because neoliberals fucking hate him lol

@@evnnns It still baffles me that people identify as neoliberal now.

Which is why 13:01 confused me a bit. Sure Harris believes in some progressive ideals but didn’t the guy nearly endorse Bloomberg in the election?

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.

Ben asslick lmao

Its almost as if they want to dominate the discussion on theory of mind or something...

Did ancient philosophers had Postgraduate degrees in philosophy?

@@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.

I didnt know one was required.

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.

lol

Cringe but redpilled sadly

Sp this is what other people thought about that😂

Hitchens is ok.

This. He has 90% of the cake, but he refuses to see the rest, if ya get me?

@@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'...

@@reidwallace4258 who does he 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.

Pretty much

He didn't say it was

Nah, I'm an atheist and Sam's reaction to Islam is so unconstructive and he's been promoting right wing reactionary ideology.

Yeah I'm an atheist, Sam Harris is just objectively a stupid human

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.

Nah I’m atheist but even I realize how idiotic his islam stance is