/lit/ - Literature

>>11626153
>look mom im a contrarian
Typical i/lit/erates. Making fun of great philosophers without actually responding to their arguments. I suppose it brings you reassurance, does it, being able to laugh at greater men behind your little computer screens because you're too afraid to cross swords with them intellectually? Pathetic.

>>11626169
>>>reddit

>be millionaire trustfund hollywood babby
>drop out of college
>spend 10 years travelling and meditating thanks to your parents wealth
>back to school
>declare self an enlightened intellectual and write books
>despite being enlightened, be triggered and get into twitter fights like a teenager

I can't take this guy seriously.

lmao

>b-but won't i look stupid standing with my hands clasped like a monk inside of bushes?
>photographer: no man trust me, its cool, its real cool

>>11626180
how about you respond to Dr Harris's arguments?

>>11626205
>calling him ”Dr”
Yikes...

I see a lot of butt hurt bois in here but no counter arguments. Let's be honest, none of you neets will have any strong arguments against the guy. You would all get btfo debating this jew. I'm not even atheist but I can appreciate his knowledge and world view.

>>11626187
The dropping out of college and going to India part improves his image as far as I'm concerned. But, yeah, the childish Twitter fights are just embarrassing.

>>11626169
>>11626614
Not who either of you are replying to but give a specific argument and maybe someone would try?

>>11626246
That's because most of /lit/ are autists/aspergers/schizos. Winning a debate in person requires charm and charisma.

I think his autism makes him likeable desu. He will not back down if he thinks he's telling the truth so he pisses off everyone at the same time.

He's also one of the few public intellectuals that admit that blacks are mentally inferior.

I like him.
>>11626668
>He's also one of the few public intellectuals that admit that blacks are mentally inferior.
This is not true.

>>11626246
most of us have never read anything he's written because in the fields in which we operate he's just a non-entity. I can't think of a single academic field in which he's relevant, and I've never heard his name spoken at a conference of any variety. It's not a bad thing, he's just not a serious intellectual. He's a popularizer. He goes on CNN. And that's fine. But his trembling autistic acolytes need to stay in their lane. If you want people to take you seriously you need to do serious scholarship.

>>11626673
Are you saying acknowledging the mental inferiority of blacks is mainstream among public intellectuals? Most seem to beat around the bush.

>>11626676
Nice imagination you have

>>11626169
shit tier bait

>*blocks your ability to derive an ought from an is*
Heh... nothin personnel... Ben

>>11626676
free will? god? morality? He goes into the biggest questions humanity faces. Just because he's not in some circle jerk "conference" means he's not trying to answer lifes tough questions? I don't get your reasoning. He literally goes after the same questions (insert popular philosopher here) does.

>>11626153
almost as cool as jordan b peterson

>>11627373
*puts your hand on the stove and doesn't let go until you accept that this proves objective morality*

Literally the biggest pseud in existence

>>11627449
Yes, violence for the sake of your beliefs has always been a proven antidote to non-believers

>>11627452
Molyneux is a bigger pseud.

>>11627452
I just don't understand how you could think that. His followers are awful but his reasoning seems to be well thought out

>>11627561
Ok you got me there

>>11627781
He just doesn’t seem like he’s ever considered the fact that he might be wrong about something

His discussion with Scott Adam's bordered on cringe inducing.

This man closed the is-ought gap and proved objective morality. Show him some respect.

>>11627825
"proved objective morality"

what the fuck he didn't prove anything or say anything that philosophy hasn't addressed in the past 2000 years

>>11627795
ok but that's a fallacy your just judging his personality and the way he acts your not judging his ideas

>>11626676
"Serious scholarship"
Leave.

Is it ad hominem to question his credibility (funding, Phd, parents) and his political agenda (which is obvious in his writings).

>>11627781
his entire foundation is weak. This whole maximising human flourising/pleasure drivel. Also notice how he only debates sophists and low tier intellectuals, so he has an air of irrefutebaleness.

He is the least articulate "intellectual" I've ever come across.

>>11627928

Sam grew up very wealthy in LA. It's a feat in and of itself that he's not one of these drug addicted waste of lives Paris Hilton etc. . He could probably be spending his families money doing whatever he wants. Instead h chose to take a career path that exposes him and his family to constant death threats. He's an insanely brilliant guy who could've chosen to be a doctor lawyer whatever, and this is what he chose to do... I'm not sure whether to scratch my head or admire the guy.

I wrote a whole piece detailing his flaws, but a fly flew on my touch screen and deleted it -_-

Basically the sense I got from talking to intelligent people with expertise in philosophy was that he hasn't contributed anything substantial to any field he has engaged in, and that he is a philosophy popularizer with a poor grasp of philosophy. I have not read any of his books however, so I would not know.

I will say that in reading the way he framed his """"debate"""" with Noam Chomsky, he came off as a rather sophistical and uncharitable and shallow thinker.

>>11628087
I mean to be fair he has about the same level of intellectual depth as paris hilton.

I see him on tv sometimes when I go to restaurants and when the camera turns to him and he's not talking it looks like he's fiercely concentrating on how to look like someone who is deep in thought as possible. And it works, some of you poor pseuds eat it up.

>>11626205
>Dr

OH HOH No No No

>>11626169

>great philosophers
>Sam Harris
>philosopher

Nice try. If you had at least called him a great neuroscientist (which would be irrelevant as well, but well).

>>11626187
>>11626614

Oh god, I didn't know about his feuds on twitter. That's hilarious.

In an ethics course I took I would find any excuse possible to reference Sam Harris in my essays to see how, if at all, my professor would react. I frequently compared him to John Stuart Mill and cited The Moral Landscape; every time I did that my professor would write a lengthy comment disagreeing - not, mind you, with the comparison but with my decision to cite Harris. I got a great kick out of that class.

>>11626614
it would be if he did it on his own. he has rich parents that supported him and knew he could count on their money whenever he wanted to stop playing wanderer.

its like those rich liberals that write articles about how they moved halfway across the country to start a new life, but conveniently leave out that they moved halfway across the country into their parent's second condo

>>11628245

>>11627835
Being a pseud is mostly about personality though

>>11627552
I hope you weren't being sarcastic because it works very well actually.

>>11626153
At first I thought he was standing in a field of weed plants. that would of been cooler desu. But he's still based

>>11627449
*doesnt feel pain because born without nerve endings in hand*
This isn't even my final form

what did he mean by this?

>>11626246
*snap*

>>11629143
He meant:
>chapo trap house are gay bois
You're welcome.

>>11629143
showing his own barbarism. Btw isnt that statement circular? By saying that hes talking about his own ideology.

>>11626169
>greater men
subjective; opinion discarded

>>11626153
Why is he in a bush? Did they just find him like this and decide to take a picture?

Yes, yes, well done Harris, well done.
HOWEVER

>>11628297
never seen a more appropriate use of this meme

>>11626169
I just like jokes and sophistry. Sorry.
>not a inthecontext guy either

>>11631849
>>11631849
Ha!