Rationalists btfo

Rationalists btfo

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=V4hudgUt1fQ
amazon.com/Stoicism-Ancient-Philosophies-John-Sellars/dp/0520249089
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Shit in a fan of both of them and was hoping they would actually have a discussion about things they agree on like Islam. But of course Sam can't stand it when people are even a little religious so has to debate.

Harris is OK with discarding 10,000 years of human revelation on how to flourish as individuals and as a society, but is scared to death that we are going to have a conscious AI making rational decisions for us

So in the meantime all we can do is sit around with our thumbs up our asses and leave it to 'philosophers' like him to tell us to vote for Clinton

Sam Harris is loyal to his tribe
people like him for bashing Islam and regressives
but he is thinking long-term strategy for his cause

So who won?

Is he the guy worth checking out or he is just another fedora neckbeard faggot who got shit under control and he is milking his audience or filling the rolemodel gap caused by well fedora behavior?

what are ontological roadblocks and metaphysical axioms?

that's code for harris sperging out for 2 hours over JP's religious dogmas

He's saying that since Harris is so dogmatic in his positivistic materialism there isn't really much discussion to be had.

Harris probably wanted evidence.
JP probably offered philisophical arguments about how a God should exist.

I might watch it, but I'd guess it's like every other Christian v Atheist debate out there.

Too bad, they should have discussed something they share some common ground on.

I fucking hate kikes

Well you have come to the right place.
Welcome.

In laymans, they couldn't agree on what "just is".

For example, "the universe just is"
or
"humans are rational (period)"

Like most of these debates, it will ultimately boil down to JP asking Harris where he derives his moral code from if not from a religious context. Harris will drop 'herd mentality, flounder, and then spend the next hour talking about idealistic thought experiments that aren't compatible with the real world

>Tips fedora
I wanna kick this dbag in the teeth

Hmm, really makes you think.

...

He's definitely worth checking out. I'm really not religious, sort of against the idea of religion, but he made me see the ways in which the religious idea set influences cultural preconceptions you don't even think about.

that's what i thought, a basic inability to start at the same premise.

You talkin about JP?
I don't mean JP, I mean this other goy. I though it is obvious by the fedora usage.

Has the podcast been posted yet?

i don't deal with epistemological buzzwords and academic bullshit speak.

go fuck yourself, you cods walloping jacobite.

Fucking Google it next time, Goliath.

Harris is a bigot. Sup Forums likes him because he hates Muslims, but in reality he hates all faiths.

Why does that make one a bigot?

Pretty much. Yeah. Only thing else of note is the term metaphysical, so it was probably just a big stupid argument of what the meaning of "is" is.

But sometimes these sort of 'debates' can be really interesting explorations on the nature of _thing_. Maybe they don't decide anything, but get two sincere philosophers in a room and the back and forth can be great as each party simply explores arguments where they should logically lead, correcting eachother when wrong, and sometimes even better arguing for their "opponent".

Considering Harris was involved, I doubt that is what happened in this instance.

I've never actually seen the thread about him on pol. I think his audience is probably reddit tier.

Thats what I hate most. Even tho religion is pile of crap, it might be beneficial for some people. As a guide, as a compas, as an opiate.

One might apply the same set of arguments vs democracy. Stupid individual does not necessary makes the best decision for himself.

And some guide might come in handy as a set of rules one blindly follows in order to not shit on his life.

Muslims do it every day and they seem to me are doing better nowadays than lots of other religions.

Asking why that would make someone a bigot is what a bigot would say.

Bigotry is the irrational rejection of belief systems other than your own. What makes Harris a bigot is that when he is presented with the evidence of the social utility and necessity of religion, he simply rejects that evidence because it conflicts with his biases. Check out some of the arguments he's had with Jonathan Haidt on youtube. One a couple of panels they shared Haidt presented evidence of the positive benefits of religion and Harris's response was basically just 'I refuse to believe that'.

Did you expect anything less from (((Harris))) he rallies against religion all while promoting Buddhism. He's literally the liberal atheist meme

Can't stand the way Sam Harris speaks tbqthwy

Harris' thoughts on religion are nothing new. Basically Bertrand Russell.

What I don't like about Harris is how he tries to be a philosopher, but he is fucking terrible at it. For example, a big part of his Ph.D thesis was about how belief informs action. In a debate with Noam Chomsky, Chomsky noted that, for all practical purposes, everyone thinks they are the good guys, so judging action based on intent is pointless since basically everyone intends to do good. Even ISIS thinks they are ultimately doing the world a favor. The way to judge action is based on, well, the fucking action itself.

Harris sperged the fuck out over this because a big part of his work (and Ph.D thesis) suggests action can be judged from belief (or intent) and beliefs can be evaluated as objectively good or bad.

It was a hilarious shitstorm and even though Chomsky is shit too, I think Harris permanently damaged his academic credibility over it. He's basically a pundit that uses big words and pretends to be a serious philosopher.

Peterson thinks Harris is a dishonest kike

Mark my words, Harris is stuck in materialism.

Samuel Benjamin "Sam" Harris was born on April 9, 1967 in Los Angeles, the son of actor Berkeley Harris and TV producer Susan Harris (née Spivak), who created The Golden Girls. His father came from a Quaker background and his mother is Jewish.

>Rationalists
that's people who like ted cruz right?

We already determined his love for shekels Sherlock.

Dobro jbt.

Next debate Sam Harris vs Dejan Luchich aka The Man Who Knows.

:/

Some people have made the mistake of seeing Harris'work as a load of rubbish about railway timetables, but clever people see this as a deliberate ambiguity, a plea for understanding in a mechanized world. The points are frozen, the beast is dead. What is the difference? What indeed is the point? The point is frozen, the beast is late out of Paddington. The point is taken. If Peterson's's elk would spurn Tom Jones the engine must be our head, the dining car our esophagus, the guard's van our left lung, the cattle truck our shins, the first-class compartment the piece of skin at the nape of the neck and the level crossing an electric elk called Simon. The clarity is devastating. But where is the ambiguity? It's over there in a box. Harris is saying the 8.15 from Gillingham when in reality he means the 8.13 from Gillingham. The train is the same only the time is altered. Ecce homo, ergo elk. Peterson knew his sister and knew her bloody well. The point is taken, the beast is moulting, the fluff gets up your nose. The illusion is complete; it is reality, the reality is illusion and the ambiguity is the only truth. But is the truth, as Hitchcock observes, in the box? No there isn't room, the ambiguity has put on weight. The point is taken, the elk is dead, the beast stops at Swindon, Chabrol stops at nothing, I'm having treatment and Peterson can get knotted.

Harris said he only believes in what can be observed and measured scientifically. Why? Because only what is observable and can be measured via scientific methods is observable and measureable scientifically. The suggestion that there are such things that are true but cannot be verified via scientific methods is ludicrous. Why? Because there is no observable or scientific evidence for such things.

Anyone have link to conversation?

They could not agree on aspects of "being" and have different fundamental beginnings in their logic on how metaphysics work.

>ontological roadblocks and metaphysical axioms

an axiom is an assumed given. See Euclid. So, basically he is saying they cannot agree what the facts are, so a debate is meaningless.

Ontology is the study of what exists, and the categories thereof. So I guess an ontological roadblock would be not agreeing on what exists, and having different categories.

A good example would be Stoicism - Stoics believe everything that exists is material, even the soul. Christianity believes things exist which are not material, such as the the soul, and ideas. These two philosophies have an ontological disconnect.

HOLY SHIT THIS IS TRUE. HALF JEWFAG HERE, LITERALLY DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH MY JEW SIDE BECAUSE THEY DO THIS EXACTLY. HOLY SHIT ME AND HITLER SHARE WAY TOO MANY OPINIONS I CAN BARELY HANDLE THESE REDPILLS. MY BONER IS SO STRONG RN.

youtube.com/watch?v=V4hudgUt1fQ

wow user you are very smart
the cow is moo, cogito ergo homo, ergo matrix is harris axioms

Well that's unfortunate. Religion is obviously a useful tool for keeping the unintelligent in line. Unfortunately, religious cultures will only progress so a certain extent.

Funny, I didn't ask for a black lives matter debate

The law already uses intent as a basis for culpability. It's called mens rea. A lot of crimes aren't crimes without intent.

My problem with ghosts gods and demons is that why don't we have any concrete evidence for them if they play a big role in the world as religion says. When it's raining we don't say that the rain spirit caused it or maybe an earthquake, we say it's natural phenomena

>tfw you actually know which Python episode that's from

All knowledge is predicated on faith in axioms (self-evident premises that logical conclusions are derived from)

If you disagree on what is self-evident then it's difficult to have any conversation because any subsequent logic has to be based on first premises

>Chomsky noted that, for all practical purposes, everyone thinks they are the good guys

Socrates said that 2,500 years ago. People act under the belief that they are doing what is best.

A bunch of jargon that makes talking about pointless, immaterial concepts sound important

Fuck off. What's the point of listening to people agree?

>what is circular reasoning

*tips*

Why do you think these things aren't important?
This is how we progress as a species.

They're not important. Epistemology is a failure of a science. It is unable to produce any fruits. Absurdism is the final redpill. Any "knowledge" relies on you having faith in a first premise/axiom.

kek. That one is not a goy at all. And no, not worth your time.

Thats what I thought so.
He is fast car salesman who sells atheism.

this

>am philo major

Jordan will argue there are truths in religion that are moral truths but Harris will get too hung up on what Jordan means by that to get past it, like he always does with everything. Harris will try to argue that looking to religion for morals is always wrong because there were no good morals and he'll use analogous when he really means comparable to convey a point so contrived that his attempt to proof by contradiction doesn't get across he'll argue nobody understands why he's so superior to them intellectually.

I'm going to guess Jordan will sound normal compared to Harris.

Who would win in a debate Sam Harris or Stephan Molymeme?

>hit ontological roadblock

>be le science man

>cant use science to prove your views

checkmate, atheists

theyre both philosophically illiterate

can i have fries with that

A bigot is anyone that is incapable of changing their mind or seeing things from another point of view

Well that's an interesting epistemology.

If the truth of something depends on it's capacity to be measured, one would have to conclude that _things_ do not exist until they are measured.

Close your eyes, and the world disappears.

You are bigot.

I'm not talking about the importance of philosophy, but about passing off a debate between two individuals as some kind of higher purpose. There's no point "staging" a debate as some kind of spectator event, especially when each debater is just doing it for their own ego

The phenomena is what is observable. You don't see the cause. It's not like you see in behind nature and see forces, or whatever. Natural laws describe regularities in the appearances of things, but there's no reason that two identical phenomena can't have different unseen causes.

y the insult?

just a joke senpai. I did LD debate in HS and hated people getting all technical and spergy over metaphysics

I'm okay with this label.

>Close your eyes, and the world disappears

This is exactly the route that Sam takes anytime he has a disagreement with someone. He calls it "meditating" because it makes him feel better that the other person doesn't exist anymore.

He is.

Harris once told an audience that Jesus ordered his disciples to bring non believers to him so he might slay them, but he failed to mention Jesus spoke those words in a parable and that it wasn't an actual directive and he wasn't speaking in the first person.

I could understand Harris making a mistake or possibly interpreting something ambiguous in a violent way but not this. This was intentionally dishonest and meant to mislead his audience. I kind of like him but this kind of shit makes me not trust him.

>Stoics believe everything that exists is material, even the soul.

I wasn't aware of this being a requirement. The Roman stoics (the only stoic philosophy I've really read) always gave me a different impression. The early Christians were bigly influenced by the stoics.

You don't know what you're talking about leaf
I should have know that I will get a retarded reply by posting in a thread filled with puesdo intellectuals

Why is answering a question technical and spergy?

I guess knowledge is a bad thing now.

You are correct on both points. But yeah, the philosophy of Stoicism was materialistic. They had a core set of beliefs about physics and ethics.

amazon.com/Stoicism-Ancient-Philosophies-John-Sellars/dp/0520249089

My problem with Peterson's view is that he argues for objective morality via religion, but he sees religion as a means of crowd sourcing morality and not as something that actually is based in literal truth. That doesn't really confer objectivity to the morals themselves, it just means we've got a tool for refining our morals. There still exist other religions with different ideas of right and wrong.

Harris likewise is not a moral relativist but as an atheist he is trying to discover a way to justify this based in reality as best he can. It's worth trying but I think it will never succeed because the truth is, human morality is a product of evolution and is by nature ever changing.

Pls don't go user.

Don't let quantum physics scare you.
Its just particles.

(((Harris))) is no goy he just has a waspy name.

Thanks for the link user.

Fuck Sam Harris and fuck atheist Jews.

your probably correct not many of the (((New atheist))) are sincere philosophers

Nice pasta

yea that's why most serious thinkers don't take the rule of law too seriously

No they hate Ted because he's against fag marriage
Bernie is who they like

That's a shame
I was considering watching

Sam Harris gets high off the smell of his own farts

>Religion is obviously a useful tool for keeping the unintelligent in line.

Actually, through most history Religion has been a bastion of intellectualism. It's only been since the takeover of academia by secular leftists at the end of the modern era that being irreligious has been associated with being intelligent and educated. That take over was the product of a political campaign, not intellectual discourse.

>Unfortunately, religious cultures will only progress so a certain extent.

A. "religious cultures" is redundant, all cultures have a religious component

B. The west owes much of it's progress to a key aspect of Christianity: continuous revelation, the idea that God is constantly revealing his Truth to us. This encourages people to pay attention to the world and learn from it. Prior to the postmodern era, science was typically the province of religious men who sought a better understanding of God's creation.

The problem is not just AI making choices for people, but taking over the human race. At what point will AI realize humans are a threat to it (being the one who can pull the plug).

All this contention really just amounts to people being unable to abandon the notion of a "magic sky-fairy" for more than two seconds.

People think that any agreement alongside faith is an agreement to submission

>unable to abandon the notion of a "magic sky-fairy" for more than two seconds.

If that's really how you think religious people think of God, then you don't understand religion well enough to condemn it.

I think it will take a whole week to come out for some reason

How can anyone deny the law of identity? Or the cogito ergo sum? These axioms shouldn't be arguable, especially if they are self-evident.

Yeah its Harris's production.

whoa