/lit/ - Literature

It's hilarious that people actually take Sam Harris seriously as a thinker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifpIw3EK7-A

Haha! I had no idea who this guy was until a few days ago. Made a status about philosophy and someone posted "make sure your thoughts aren't boring" and linked me to a Sam Harris article . I didn't recognize the name in Op's topic, just the face.

>>3805722
New found respect for Zizek right here.

>>3805722
>The reason I am not opposed to torture is because Sam Harris is still alive.

Bravo, Slavoj.

>>3805701
>>3805722
>2013
>being a part of the hive mind

Harris is definitely worth listening to. I haven't heard or read him say anything on Freud, but if he did say that, he's right. Despite his influence, no one should be taking Freud seriously anymore.

>>3805733
>hive mind

Well Freud's theories aren't really involved that much in modern psychology. Almost everything he said was wrong and he's only really relevant in a small area of heuristics. He's the father of modern psychology, but most of what he said was balls wrong... though is approach was right.

>>3805733
Years of successful psychoanalytic treatment seem to indicate otherwise.

>>3805776
We're mostly talking about his other theories, like the Oedipus complex and such. However, many regard psychoanalytic theory as obsolete.

>>3805764
Freud asked the right questions, but came to the wrong conclusions, sure, but modern psychology isn't really in a position to say what is "right" since the field is kind of undergoing a crisis of affirmation these days.

>>3805764
>heuristics
Has anyone noticed this word being used diligently the last 24 hours? I swear I keep running in to it.

>>3805818
>undergoing a crisis of affirmation these days.
True dat, Dawg.

>>3805829
I haven't used the word in months.

>>3805722
Zizek respect +1

Otto Rank surpassed Freud and is more relevant today and has a better track record of actually helping patients.

Which is why Freud ostracized him.

In a culture in which neuroses are treated with the totalitarian practice of sedation rather than actual attention, the "talking cure" of psychoanalysis is needed more than ever.

>>3805798

Freud's theories have been mostly disproven at this point, that doesn't make him a joke by any means. He basically jump started the whole field of psychology, so he's still a pretty big figure.

Protip: Harris and his faggot-neoatheist-horsemen aren't taken seriously in academia. At all.

All of them are sophomoric-tier ramblers.

>>3805829
that happens to me with certain words too, but I'm sure it's more of a coincidence. The last one I remember was 'skeumorph'

>>3805693

I'm too busy hating Sam Harris for his offhand comments about the Iran-Iraq war during his mini debate with Scott Artran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6qQDphSGU

Skip to 4:30, and listen to Harris' response. It's vile that he could say such a thing, and shows how little he knows about anything to do with the recent history of the middle east.

>>3805912
>jump started the whole field of psychology
>Freud
>not William James
>no one giving credit to William James despite being a much better thinker
ishygddt

>>3805919
Protip: The serious thinkers of our age aren't part of or approved of by academia.

>>3806302

lol

>>3805722

Easily the most odious human being alive today.

Some people deserve to die a horrible death

>>3805764

>Miss! Never trust a jew!

>mfw people still trying to fight organized religion through words and books

It's been tried already by much more intelligent thinkers than are living today. You will not prevail. What is not endowed with reason will never be governed by it.

>>3806165
Offhand comments? Watching that debate actually make me like him more. I think where others try too hard to be politically correct, Harris tends to be intellectually honest. The more and more I read or listen to Harris, the more I realize how wrong those liberals who whine about him are.

>>3806331
>Harris tends to be intellectually honest.
lol

>>3805693
No one will remember Harris in 50 years.

>>3806331
You clearly know as little about the Iran-Iraq war as Sam Harris does.

>Iran Iraq war wasn't Iran against America at all! Iran wasn't in a desperate situation at all, they only ran through the minefields because they were filthy mudslimes!

Fuck him. He fails to mention how the political leaders of the world not only stayed silent while Iraq gassed entire Iranian villages to death, but carried on giving him weapons. He ignores that Iran had pretty much lost the entirety of its military leaders by the beginning of the war, as well as having no money and pretty much no one giving them weapons.

This is why I despise him for making such a comment, and trying to use the Iran-Iraq war to highlight the barbarity of Muslims. America helped force the people into an incredibly hopeless situation, and allowed them to subjected to the horrible warcrimes just because they wanted a government to fall. Then 20 years or so later you have ignorant scumbags like Sam Harris saying "LOOK I told you they were evil all along!!!! We didn't even do anything"

>>3806356
Not who you're responding to, but thanks. I thought Harris' comments were acceptable until you mentioned the circumstances. I guess this just shows how much a lack of historical knowledge can affect an opinion.

>>3806324
>that pic

"What doesn't kill me... Dies" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

fuck harris.he's the gayest of the faggot horsemen, at least dennett has a badass beard

>>3806314
You talkin about Harris ye?

>>3806367
I think this should also put into perspective why, really, he advocates nuclear first strike against the Mid-East.

>>3806398
>dennett
meh
he looks like the prototypical neckbeard basement dweller, and talks like one, too; wish he stopped doing philosophy--he's an embarrassment to the field

>>3806423

all four of them are embarrassments to the field, though i'll wager that your only objections center around their current popularity, which isn't a bad thing by itself

>>3805693
Looks like the autistic brother of Ben Stiller. Would not read.

>>3806402

Never heard of Harris, I imagine he doesn't count for much.

I'm talking about that repulsive clod in the video.

>>3806376

>implying immortal thinkers ever die

Some are born posthumously, faggot

>>3806452
>hasn't heard of Harris
>the thread is about it
>talking shit about Sizzle

Suicide watch, nigga pic related

So /lit/ is knee deep in theists and philosophy bullshitters? "hurr... he isn't good at the subject of bullshit, that matters because i am egdy and do college, see i major in philosophy! i know all the bullshit inductions and shit... our subject is relivent and sum stupid shit like that, ".

I hope you faggots get cancer and die.

>>3806476
>i don't understand philosophy so it's bullshit
>please don't let valid rational criticism and logical consistency get in the way of my research
>fucking thinkers getting in the way of our test tubes and shit

>>3806456
>posthumously
Implaying humans will be forever and our race/planet won't fall into obscurity

ITT Atheists getting their shit pushed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

It's two hours, so tl;dr
>Krauss gets his shit rocked.

>>3806476

>So /lit/ is knee deep in theists and philosophy bullshitters

Yes, unfortunately.

>>3806501

you don't understand christianity

>>3806493
>krauss
yet another embarrassing popsci mug
disgusting

>>3806465

I should kill myself because I hold a low opinion of two charlatans?

You're the one that needs to hang buddy

>>3806493
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

>>3806356
Wait wait. Aren't you missing the point? He only notes how people were seemingly 'okay' with sending human waves of children to clear the minefields as long as their faith provided a salvation (martyrdom) through it.

He isn't commenting in the least about the implications of US policy towards Saddam or whether it is justified in the least.

And you seem to imply that just about anyone would be okay with sending kids through minefields if they couldn't fight a war standing. So it's mean to point out if faith mentality could justify it?

And fuck Jimmy Carter last but not least.

>>3806525
sure we don't.

But what brings you assholes(christians) here to 4chan? The side of sexual degeneracy, pity, hatred and sodomy? Don't fucking bend your religion of your own convince you little shi!

Relevant.

>>3806546
I detect a troll.

>>3806501
read ;)

>>3806476
>>3806501
>>3806546
Stop samefriend. You've been flooding /lit/ with antitheist nonsense about how /lit/ is filled with christfags. It isn't. We just don't care about your pop-cults.

History will erase him.

>>3806537
>Zizek
>Charlatan

Nice found opinion you have there.

>>3806554

Maybe.

But it doesn't make any sense why there are so many theists and especially christians here. On /lit/ there almost seems to be more christians than atheists. Which is a pity. One would think that this board would be the most intellectually honest and intelligent boards around. Alas.

>>3806546
grumble grumble grumble nyeeeeeh grumble grumble

>>3806552
>Western anti-war muslim liberal demonstrators that thought Saddam was the bullied good guy & the Taliban were freedom fighters

loooool

>>3806562
The fact that you think theism (or irrational beliefs in general) has anything to do with intelligence shows that you aren't fit to judge.

>>3806562
The christian population on /lit/ is the smartest. You untermensch heathens have no place here leleele

>>3806574

No, certainly, highly intelligent people are capable of foolish beliefs, but that doesn't make the belief any more real. However, the more well-read you are, the odder it is if you are religious and that you do believe in irrational things.

>>3806562
Majority of theists on /lit/ follow religion because: They've done the reading (both philosophical and theological), gained a comprehensive grasp of the religious message, and have placed their faith in a way of lifestyle which they understand may or may not be true.

>>3806562
1. /lit/ posters are interesting in literature
2. There is plenty of good literature by Christians and about Christianity (or theists and theism, if you want to be general)
3. Being able to appreciate literature means being able to appreciate different perspectives
4. You're a poot that imagines there is a huge population of theists on this board when it doesn't matter even if it's true

?

>>3806493
>I'm just making my own mind up because I watch video of Christopher Hitchens and he's an authority to me, I don't know much.
Fucking ouch.

>>3806583
*interested

Fuck.

>>3806581
I fucked that sentence up incredibly but you get the picture

>>3806561

He is a charlatan, just like his paragon Hegel.

I'm sorry your brain has been so befogged by hollow prattle that you can't see he is only the newest representative in a long history of bad, vacuous philosophasters.

Anyone who can read Parallax View and not feel he is in a madhouse ought rightly to be prohibited from studying philosophy in any form. He is the embodiment of an entire manifold of sullying trends in philosophy, most notably those of introducing politics and psychoanalytic nonsense into the field.

If you had more than a university acquittance with philosophy you might understand why honest, clear-speaking thinkers despise him and everything he stands for.

>>3806493
As much as I don't like Krauss, he won that debate. Though that's not saying much. It's not very hard to beat a Muslim in a theological debate.

>>3806580
>However, the more well-read you are, the odder it is if you are religious and that you do believe in irrational things.

It's the other way around. Literature and philosophy are full of theistic influence. And, just on a hunch, I believe people who read a lot of philosophy and even fiction tend to think more about their existence than people who don't, which can lead some people toward theism.

>>3806590
>zizek introduced politics into philosophy
>zizek introduced psychoanalysis into philosophy

hooooboy.

>>3806590
>mfw a capitalist posted near me
>"He is a charlatan, just like his paragon Hegel"

>>3806590
>blah blah bullshit

Argue about the things he actually said or wrote and we'll talk.

>>3806590

How anyone cannot understand 'The Real' for what it is, namely the Hegelian 'Absolute' smuggled back into philosophy under a different title, is beyond me.

And even a cursory inspection of the man will undoubtedly yield the conclusion that here is someone who decided does NOT represent anything like an ascending trend of human existence. The man and his philosophy constitute nothing more than a very meticulously knotted dead end.

>>3806594
The whole "debate" was meh at best, but Krauss was clearly the worst part of it.

>>3806598

Read the sentence again more slowly.

embodiment of a trend, not its originator

>>3806613
When you're right, you're right. I fucked up.

>>3806590
He's not a charlatan, he's a court jester.

/lit/ has become one giant anti-atheist circlejerk approaching /pol/ dimensions. I mean stop and take another look at this thread. Christ almighty.

>>3806610
That's because science isn't about armchair arguments. a debater could make a convincing argument why the holocouast was a good thing, but does that make him right?

>>3806628
Why does it bother you so much? It's refreshing, really. And this is coming from an atheist.

Harris (and the majority of the new atheism forerunners in general, but I'll stick to addressing the four horsemen) are all woefully ignorant of many of the the subjects they attack. It's not their attacks on religion that bother me, ones which are generally valid but over-exaggerated, but their commentary and attacks on any other subject, ever. They push modernism so far into its logical conclusion that it has it's dick through its ass and sticking out its throat.

>>3806631
There are too many people on this planet anyway. We need another, larger one.

>>3806628
Just stop.

>>3806631
Lol, if that makes you feel better about it.

>>3806632
I don't find it refreshing at all. They're merely reacting to the rise in atheism. It bothers them that it's becoming more popular so they play devil's advocate. /lit/ does this all the time. The new atheists and redditors are annoying, sure, but most of us with good sense know also that they're right.

>>3806631
>a debater could make a convincing argument why the holocouast was a good thing, but does that make him right?
It certainly doesn't make him wrong.

>>3806631
>a debater could make a convincing argument why the holocouast was a good thing, but does that make him right?
It was a good thing, though?

Regardless, it doesn't matter that science isn't about 'armchair arguments'. That's an idiotic phrase attempting to discredit any non-scientific type of inquiry, and that's plainly laughable.

>>3806581
If that's the case, which I generally think it to be, shouldn't a believer be acknowledging that his or her faith isn't primarily based on the likelihood of their god existing? It seems to me like the best, most intelligent, most likely and most open-minded stance would be to derive moral and philosophical value from one's religion, but admit that its god in all probability does not exist, that instead of a supernatural being actually existing, the notion of a 'god' should rather be seen as a window into how people think and feel about certain things.

>>3806658
>It bothers them that it's becoming more popular so they play devil's advocate. /lit/ does this all the time

I mean, you're right about this. It isn't just /lit/, though, it's neckbeards in general. Everybody hates Louis CK, Death Grips, etc. now that they're more well received.

At the same time, there are plenty of douchey atheists who come into threads about religion with retarded ">implying god exists" type shit. I like that /lit/ allows space for non-atheistic discussion, but there are admittedly some retarded theists on this board as well.

>>3806658
But they aren't "right". Assuming there is no god, that only makes one of the conclusions the group of them have made true. Almost everything else is shit. (Hitchens isn't so bad though. He's the only one with an independent thought amongst them, and none of them have his bravery. Say what you may about some of his arguments but I have to respect the fact that he subjected himself to waterboarding just to prove it was torture, not that it was needed.)

>in before "lyl christfag"

>>3806685
>hitchens
>brave

Watch that 'waterboarding' thing of him.

>>3806676
>Louis CK, Death Grips, etc.
Both of those were shit even before they became popular. What the hell are you even trying to say?

>>3806688
Finish reading the post mang

>>3806658
i was the edgiest atheist on earth before i became the edgiest thiest

checkmate destroyed go home

>>3806685
I can totally concede that they're not "right" about many topics, but and even on religion I can't say with certainty that they're right. What I will say is that based on what's known of the universe, they seem to be more than likely "right" about atheism.

>>3806697
Lel, sorry. Still, did you see it? I've been tortured worse by other kids at the pool in good fun.

>>3806690
Fucking knew some predictable cunt would jump on the opportunity to say something like this. Way to be original.

>>3806709
You predicted it because it's obvious, it has nothing to do with originality. You sound decidedly uncultured by namedropping Louis CK and Death Grips in a thread about Sam Harris, though I guess the three go together in a sort of anti-intellectual anti-culture way.

>>3806632
I'm the guy you responded to. I'm an atheist too, and being able to discuss theology and faith intelligently is more than refreshing, as is getting away from the le reddit style atheists. But /lit/ has become so goddamn similar to them; they get on the internet to pat each other on the back with their idiotic stereotypes about atheism. /lit/ loves to attack 'new atheism' (I hate that term so much) for being ignorant about religion and holding a childishly simplistic view of it, yet they're committing the exact same crime they accuse the atheists of.

>>3806707
>What I will say is that based on what's known of the universe, they seem to be more than likely "right" about atheism.

And that's fine. But when people that argue that torture is moral, that reading fairy tales to children and teaching children one's religion is child abuse, that we need to nuke Iran because of some invisible looming threat, are being treated as "intellectuals", they deserve scorn.

>>3806714
>You predicted it because it's obvious

Fucking amazing insight there, pussy. Neckbeard tryhard pounces on tangential example rather than the actual point of the post. News at 11.

Keep pretending you have "culture" when all you've managed to do is embody the kind of retard who made the Pavlovian association of "death grips" and "pleb" early on and can only manage to yell out the connection anytime he sees the words.

>>3806724
How easy it is to tell someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.

The one thing about moral questions is that they aren't endorsed when you ask them. So when Sam Harris does actually ask the question you refer to: Is it immoral to torture someone if you know he knows information that could save the victims of his ticking time bomb? First grade open moral question shit and really tiring to see it used as a cheap point by people who can't formulate a proper argument.

Children don't think hellfire is a fairy tale. Ask a kid who believes in God.

Who wants to nuke Iran? Source?

>>3806728
Not reading any of that, I'm uninterested in what the type of person who finds Death Grips and Louis CK to be associated with 'high culture' thinks. Head back to /r/atheism, goodbye now :).

>>3806606
Really? I thought the lacanian real was more like something that escapes our understanding, but still is "out there", but no more. As in "we can't say anything about it and certainly not that it would have anything similar to the absolute"

I've argued with Sam Harris on Google+ before. He's pretty obstinate in his views. I haven't read his literary works yet, but I just hope he's like Richard Dawkins in that respect: he's an asshole, but at least he writes good. Otherwise, he's just a shitbag all-round.

>>3806728
>all you've managed to do is embody the kind of retard who made the Pavlovian association of "death grips" and "pleb" early on and can only manage to yell out the connection anytime he sees the words.

cot damn.

>>3806750
>The one thing about moral questions is that they aren't endorsed when you ask them.
Except when it is, ya know.

>Children don't think hellfire is a fairy tale.
>mfw

>Who wants to nuke Iran? Source?
>"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe."

SAM HARRIS IS THE NEW AYN RAND

>>3806765
That's basically correct. The Lacanian real is a frightening, horribly traumatic event that cannot be explained through the imaginary, like a hawk swooping down and carrying away your dog.

>>3806765

>we can't say anything about it
>certainly not similar to the absolute

see the contradiction there?

>>3806833
Event? I thought it was supposed to be more like a component of existence.

>>3806792

>Sam Harris
>writes good

>>3806897
Reread my post, shitbag.

>>3806811
>ur so dum u don't know haris leik i do
>directly quote from Harris' End of faith
>crickets

Good. All aboard the 404 train!

>>3806545

But he is talking about US foreign policy (or at least his lack of knowledge about it)

>Neill Degrasse Tyson claims that the main reason for suicidal tactics in the islamic world, is a lack of proper military machinery, while facing a much greater enemy
>"Get the US out of this, look at the war between Iran and Iraq"
>"We were not... This was not Iran against the Great Satan"
>"How do you get a mother to celebrate the suicidal atrocities of her children?"

He's portraying the Iran-Iraq war as a run of the mill face of between two equally matched Middle Eastern countries, to counter Tyson's point that this stuff only occurs in hopeless situations. Which means either that he's lying through his teeth, which makes him the worst kind of scum. Or he has no idea what the fuck he's talking about but is using it to demonise Iran and Iranian mothers anyway, which also makes him the worst kind of scum.

As for his comments about how mothers celebrated the deaths of their children in war, it happens all the bloody time even in the west, where they claim that a soldier "died protecting his country." Everyone does it.

The worst part is his "and the rest of the family too" comment.Through it he tries to imply that the mothers didn't even care about whether their sons got into paradise, but only wanted themselves to get into paradise. He acts as if they didn't even grieve the deaths of their children, and failed to notice that most martydom celebrations in Iran were (and still are) focused on crying and mourning.

So basically, I hate Harris because his own country played an important role in pushing Iranians into a vile and bleak situation, that forced them to commit "suicidal atrocities" to survive. But not only does he deny America's role, he uses the whole event to demonise Iranians as heartless people who'd kill their own sons for a cheap ticket to heaven. Fuck him.

>>3806493
Except Krauss won that debate

>>3806844
Not really. As far as I can tell there is something more needed before you can say the Real is the Absolute.

I'll admit I heard recent talk about something called "The Real of the Real", that would indeed be far too similar to the Hegelian Absolute, but I'm not convinced about the Real as Lacan thought it.

Sure, Hegel's necessity of war as a traumatic way of realizing that you're part of something bigger, a violent inscription of the absolute, makes it sound very similar, but I still feel that it is missing a last step.

>>3806856
Well I thought so as well, but as Zizek describes it is also the violent penetration of that component into the subject while at the same time escaping symbolic and imaginary representation. Like a trauma "so traumatizing" that it is there even though you basically repress it because you cannot accept it symbolically. And then the return of the repressed "and so on and so on".

I'm no expert so maybe I didn't use all the right terms, but I think that's the basic idea.

>>3806856
It's a component of existence insofar as it is out there and that an encounter with it is always possible, but as far as I understand it only manifests itself in experiences that are unexplainable with reference to the imaginary and the symbolic. In the later seminars he seems to suggest that the Real presents itself as though it were an evil, conscious entity, but that's a different ballgame.

>>3805733
Eric Kandel said that freud is the most satisfying theory of the mind we still have.

People that dismiss freud often have not really read him.

>>3805693
I wonder what he hates about freud.
Freud was a naturalist, a neurologist and a friend of the enlightenment.

He even was trying to find ways to ground his distinction between the conscious, pre-concious and the unconcious in differences on how the neurons.

>>3806590
Nah man, you are the charlatan.
You don't read, you don't understand and yet you criticize.
Strangely enough interpretative charity and standards of rigorous reading only apply to your tradition.
That's because you are not being an advocate of clear-mindedness but just a political partisan of your little clique.
You don't care if they are right or have a point. What you care is that they are not read and don't get funding no matter what they say.

>>3806543
I'm surprised that they also pick these fucking hacks like Krauss and Harris to debate theists. We need more debates with REAL philosophers like Kagan to speak with these people; not these pretentious, pseudo-philosophers who can't pull their heads out of their 'muh empirical evidence' (!) asses.

>>3807974
It probably because Freud disagreed with some of his theories.

Sam is known for unflinching sturdiness in his own (often unfounded) opinions/philosophy, and his quickness to shit-talk anyone who disagrees with him.

>>3807974
>implying any of the new atheists is at all interested in enlightenment

>>3808057
I wonder what that is though.

>>3808045

Like Dan Dennett?

>>3808058

>implying enlightenment is a thing

>>3807954
No. You're dismissing someone who uses science and biology to explain behavior in favor of someone who just MADE SHIT UP and didn't actually back up his claims.

>>3807943
>In the later seminars he seems to suggest that the Real presents itself as though it were an evil, conscious entity,

Do you remember which seminars these are?

>>3808058
>implying you aren't generalizing and bullshitting.

I've been on /lit/ for 20 minutes and in each thread, I've seen psychobabble woo-woo bullshit crop up in several posts. Please tell me my sample size is too small and that I need to lurk more. Because if this is what you folk are like, I pity you.

>>3808114
What are you talking about? Freud was a neurologist and a naturalist.
He was fully in the standards of the late XIX and XX century.

You cannot expect him to have his articles peer reviewed when they had no peer review system.

The biggest beef that psychologists at the time had with freud was that he refused to recognize the mind (as the seat of aristotelian faculties) and instead insisted that the mind can be reduced to neurology.

You should get an education if you really want to be a defender of science. Because if you don't YOU are the one making shit up and being and obscurantist.

>>3806493
>40:00

Holy fuck krauss is a douche bag

>>3807954

Incidentally, people who hate Harris and dismiss him have usually never read him either.

>>3808155
Except his point is completely valid. Reading an old book is not learning. it's reading. Learning means you're actually right. Religion is bullshit.

>>3808160
And are usually religious.

>>3808155

He's a douche bag for talking about evolution and making sense of the universe?

>>3808160
The difference is that freud is one of the most important people in the history of thought.
Harris is a nobody and his legacy is still to be determined.

>>3808170
He's apparently a douchebag for having the audacity to be right and not being humble about it. Apparently. Honestly this video only made me respect him more for telling it like it is without sugar coating. HIS OPPONENT DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE RATIO OF A CIRCUMFERENCE OF A CIRCLE TO ITS DIAMETER EQUALS PI. Holy. Fucking. Shit. Yeah. When your opponent doesn't even know what Pi is, you get carte blanche to vent a bit.

>>3808165
I criticize harris and I'm not religious at all.
I just find his theories (especially on morality) philosophically naive. He doesn't really think things through and gives too much for granted.

>>3808171
Prove it.

>>3808155
He is saying that we should adjust our beliefs to what nature says and not the other way around.

What, exactly, is wrong with this? Is this not precisely what being intellectually honest means?

The epitome of intellectual honesty is something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4

>>3808178

I don't even see him venting at 40:00.

>>3808180
>especially on morality
This I can see being a criticism. But the notion that actions cannot be biological is just nonsense.

>>3808183
Yeah actually if you watch the video, Krauss is wrecking the shit out of his opponents. Both in tone and validity.

>>3808161

This. How can you consider yourself "learned" if all you did was read the same thing over and over again?

>>3808116
I'm almost sure it doesn't emerge before the big shift found in XVII. So much of that seminar is given to the development of the four discourses, though, that the order of the Real is never mentioned; I've just checked the index. If you're interested in tracking it down, I would start with the unpublished but online translation of XIX (entitled "...or worse").

As the concept seems fully developed in seminar XX, I think there must be an intervening écrit somewhere in there, though I'm not familiar enough with the Écrits to know which it would be. Hope that helps.

>>3808183

God, I love what he says in the middle there. "You ask me if the science is true and we say ‘No, no, we don’t know what’s true, we’re trying to find out, everything is possibly wrong’. Start out understanding religion by saying ‘everything is possibly wrong', let us see. As soon as you do that you start sliding down an edge which is hard to recover from… When you doubt and ask it gets a little harder to believe."

>>3808181
Freud is in many manuals of the history of philosophy.
It is necessary to know him to understand much of the philosophical and artistic work of the XXth century.
It is still an influence on some scientists like Eric Kandel (nobel prize) and the whole school of neuro-psychoanalysis.

Harris is still alive (so he may still do something great) and is mostly discussed and read by non-professionals on the internet.

>>3808210
No no, you proved Freud was popular. Not that he was right. You also ignored Harris' validity. This is argumentum ad populum.

>>3808187
>But the notion that actions cannot be biological is just nonsense.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this sentence.

>>3808221
Biological inheritance. For example, superstition is biologically inherited despite it's invalidity. An extremely dumbed down and simplistic version goes: you're an ape on the savannah and you hear a rustling in the tall brush. You assume it's a predator and act accordingly since not assuming it is one can get you eaten, but there's no downside (fatality) to assuming it is one. The idea starts to propagate through other aspects of cognition and you get higher-level superstitions. And then you record birds doing higher-lever superstitions (Skinner) which lends credibility to this.

>>3808118
i pity the fool who generalizes exactly the way you are doing here. this is why a hate new atheists. they are generalizing condensending douchebags who doesn't care for the truth. now, i know i am generalizing as well. when i say new atheists i mean the four hoursemen, Daniel Denett not included, he seems like a nice guy and a proper philosopher.

stay around on /lit/, there is plenty of variety, anglo-saxon and continental philosophy, and also litterature!

>>3808071
>implying you can define a thing as is

>>3808219
I never said that freud was right. I don't even think that he is right.

I claim two things:
1) That arguments that are commonly used against freud are misguided and come from not having read or thought about his work.

2) That since freud has been more popular and influential knowing him is more importnat than to know someone who is for now neither very popular or influential.

You should improve your reading comprehension mate. No wonder you don't understand freud.

>>3808205
Getting a little sloppy here. Given the late date, if there is an écrit dealing with the new characterization of the Real it would be collected in the Autres écrits, and as such would be untranslated.

>>3808235
>they are generalizing condensending douchebags

Hmmm

>>3808235
>i pity the fool who generalizes exactly the way you are doing here. this is why a hate new atheists.
>Generalizing me
Ahahah okay whatever. I just deliberately gave the out for that statement that it was a small sample size. But like a small-minded person, you glossed over it. Clearly there's no appealing to reason with you. Since you've lost all respect from me in one retarded post, I'll just reply in such a way of catharsis ease my burden.

>>3808233
>2013
>still having a viewpoint that adorno and horkheimer criticised in 1944

>>3808239
No. If you don't claim he's right then there's no point taking the conversation any further. You're either right, wrong, or some gradiation of the two. If you're not willing to be a proponent of his works, stop arguing that he's somehow better than Harris.

>>3808250
>>3808246
jesus christ, read the entire post before commenting, or go to reddit if you can't handle emotions.

>>3808252
>adorno and horkheimer
>criticized
>not debunked
Yet on the other side, there's actual evidence for this.

>>3808256
>2013
>still using arguments adorno and horkheimer criticised in 1944

>>3808233
While I agree with the basis of the argumentation and I agree that there is a biological component to superstition (like an increase tendency of our brain to find causal explanation in nature) what I think that this kinda of approach miss is the plasticity of our brain and how complex and changeable our environment is.

Yes biology is a big part of how we think and how we act, but so is our environment and culture is part of our environment.

Take for example the taste in women: certainly biology makes it so that we can find women sexually attractive, but our standards of what is considered attractive in women changes so fast and so much over time that it has to be environmental/cultural.

And there is a good evolutionary reason for that: we need to determine and chose a mate with a winning strategy of survival now, not what was considered winning thousands of years ago.

>>3808253
I think he is better than harris because I think that freud is intelligent and enlightening and a pleasure to read. I don't believe that Harris is anymore right than freud and he is neither of those things.

Anyway I don't claim that freud was right, just that he was a good scientist and a man of his time.
Galen's theory were 90% wrong yet no one denies that he is one of the best doctors the history of humanity ever had and a joy to read.

but.. freud argued for the death and sex drive as too driving factors of our actions. I mean.. Can you get anymore darwinistic.. And he introduced the unconsciousness as a term, why is he a joke?

>>3808295

I think you mean the "unconscious."

Also, is there a distinction between subconscious and unconscious?

>>3808311
sorry, i mixed up the terms. Jungs version is unconscious, as in the collective unconscious. Freuds version is the subconscious.

>>3808311
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious

The answer is complex. But the subconscious is only the processes that underlie thought. The unconscious for freud is outside of "the mind", it's like another subjectivity in you.

>>3808295
My understanding of the Freudian unconscious is that it is a realm in the mind; or an area that which cannot be consciously perceived without the aid of psychoanalysis. In contemporary psychology and neuroscience, this claim does not hold up. BUT, there seem to be a phenomena of 'sub-conscious' thoughts, which can affect behavior; i.e. subliminal messages can affect perceptions, thus changing behavior.


I hope that made sense.

>>3808311
In Freud they are basically interchangeable. I think at one point he made the specific decision to stick to unconscious, and to refrain from writing subconscious.

>>3808330
Freud called it the Unconscious. Jung adapted the term in a mystical sense, i.e. he (Jung) believed that we all share a collective unconscious mind, in which we share non conscious thoughts and archetypal figures.

When I was little my mum never cooked, we'd go down the chippy almost every day. My favourite thing to eat was the battered sausages.

These days I find them arousing.
I have a deep-freud food fetish.

He took the first steps, but he did so in clown shoes.

>>3808219
>ad populum

How else are you going to prove that somebody is important?

>>3808333
Freud determined the unconscious as an area of our brain where neurons are so old that basically cannot be affected by our environment and education.

Basically what pop-sci calls "the dinosaur brain" repository of violent appetites and ancestral fears.

Now freud says that this brain cannot be educated and because it is at odds with our environment (especially our socialized environment) it causes suffering for us because we never manage to fully adapt to society because of this ancestral/beastly brain.

So he tried to set up the analytic treatment which was a way to at least remove all the baggage of guilt and morality and bad experiences that make it even harder for us to negotiate pragmatically between what our appetites want and what society wants.

>all these /sci/ fags
>this thread still being alive

>>3808347
The fun fact is that today's psychiatry is still wearing clown shoes.

>>3805722

Good thing Zizek is around to think for you.

>>3808778
is not zizek thinking for us, it's the Other.

>>3806530

>>krauss
>yet another embarrassing popsci mug
disgusting

all these popsci mugs, who are incidentally scientists, making science more accessible to the layman. those fags.

>>3805776
>>3805776

>Years of successful psychoanalytic treatment

>>3808360

>neurons so old
hehehehe lewls.

you'll need evidence to leap from "old neurons" to behavior, but plenty of fags here don't need evidence.

>>3808233

ideas like superstitions are culturally transmitted, not biologically inherited. the assumption of predator due to rustling does not qualify as a superstition.

>>3808841

>not being a bland elitist
>pic related

>>3808863
I may agree. I think the whole predator thing is a very bad explanation. What I meant is that we MAY have a biological predisposition for poor and irrational explanations.

What that explanation is going to be, that's cultural. Definitively.

>>3808841
The problem is not when they explain science. Is that they use science to forward their philosophical views and what is even worse they lack the education to understand that they are doing that.
They have uncritically received a certain frame of mind, they have never questioned it and they think that it derives from scientific facts or that is common sense when it is neither.

Other times they are just cynical politicians ready to say anything just to keep securing funds in the academic game.

>>3808855
Why do I need evidence? I'm expressing Freud's view not commenting his validity or expressing my views in that post.

>>3808907

>They have uncritically received a certain frame of mind, they have never questioned it and they think that it derives from scientific facts or that is common sense when it is neither.

Scientists question a lot of things. Philo fags just can't admit scientists who advance their philosophical views can be less wrong.

>>3808851
It is actually very effective in treatment of depression. Whether that says anything about psychoanalysis in general, I have no idea.

>>3809251
Krauss never questioned that maybe his idea of what philosophy does or is was wrong. He just spurted his wrong ideas and then he had to back-peddle after having a talk with Dennett.

Seriously: scientists don't question a lot of things. A lot of them don't even know that induction has problems. And that's because education today is, for some good reason and a plenty bad reasons, hyper-specialized. They never think outside their discipline, think that any historical knowledge is useless and don't question the methods and protocols they receive because they are too busy learning to apply them.

I became an atheists (not an agnostic of any kind) after I read the Bible.
Shit was so long and so fucking shitty, I skipped through some parts because it's that bad.

But once you read that, you stop believing. Very ironical. Not only everything there is a complete bullshit, but it propagates violence and "morality" on the whole new motherfucking level. Only Quran can get worse than this.

>>3809311

OT of the Bible's ways worse than the Quran in terms of violence. All the stoning thing in Islam are from Hadiths. Most verses only ever advocate fighting defensive wars and ceasing war when the enemy seeks peace. Compared to the massacres and murders that happen in the OT, it's a lot more civilized (though there are things like cutting off hands for theft and whatnot, and Crucifixion for spreading trouble throughout the land)

>>3809279

I think we can all assume everything has some sort of problem. Though there's this fact that science works. There's a Sokal for a Krauss. On the bright side, Sokal and Krauss have trained themselves to admit to the possibility of being wrong. With the two names mentioned, I think it's a stretch to say scientists never think outside their discipline.

>>3809279
>Seriously: scientists don't question a lot of things

hahaha I think you need some serious exploring

>>3809262
(citation needed)

>>3805722
Holy shit Zizek is awesome

>>3809334
Nobody disagrees that science works and it is useful. I don't even doubt that it gives us authentic knowledge. And I'm not saying they never do.

What I'm saying is that scientists today for how our educational systems are done barely encounter serious philosophical thought or engage in that kind of reflection.

Again I met many scientists that don't understand the problem of induction and that's a fairly obvious problem of epistemology. So let's not talk what happens when they have to deal with meta-ethics or with something like trascendental idealism.

>Again I met many scientists that don't understand the problem of induction
Do you have data on how many scientists you haven't met that understands the problem of induction?

How is transcendental idealism useful in terms of building reality-based models, which to an extent, are verifiable?

>>3809428
>Do you have data on how many scientists you haven't met that understands the problem of induction?

I'm sure that the vast majority gets it, but the fact that in my experience I met a good number that didn't is certainly a symptom of a situation.

>How is transcendental idealism useful in terms of building reality-based models, which to an extent, are verifiable?

You do know that Trascendental Idealism is at the basis of a lot of Ernst Mach work and especially his criticism of newtonian physics? And Mach is for that probably the chief inspiration for Einstein's relativity?

Well if you do than you have your answer. If you don't then you represent very well what I consider to be the problem with many scientists today. If you knew a little bit better the history of physics you would not have asked that question.

I mean come on: we are people of intellect. We should encourage others to study, not to stop inquiry by constantly asking "what is it useful for". We should be FOR knowledge not against it and unfortunately many naturalists today are against it.

>>3805693

Oh just another self-hating Jew.

As soon as he is diagnosed with colon cancer I shall greet him with open arms at the Synagogue.

They're both jokes

>>3809462

Assuming we are people of intellect, I think you know why I doubt your opinion about scientists 1. not questioning anything outside their fields", 2. failure to appreciate the history of their methodology and tools and 3. not going beyond their discipline since I only have your anecdote and plenty of scientists who are internet bacons are experts on more than one discipline and that a lot of science books, especially the popsci ones include a history of scientific methods, not just discoveries.

I think some lionizing is going on here since Newtonian physics can make good predictions on objects below the speed of light, while Einstein's relativity is a different ball game all together. However, that still doesn't answer the role of transcendental idealism in building reality-based models. You're answer delegates transcendental idealism to inspiration, and does not point to it being some sort of a framework or a tool science can use.

I question because I'm curious, not because I'm advocating extreme pragmatism. Btw, I'm not a scientist.

>>3806165
What exactly do you dislike about his response?

>>3809462

Assuming we are people of intellect, I think you know why I doubt your opinion about scientists since I only have your anecdote and plenty of scientists who are internet bacons are experts on more than one discipline. Moreover, science books, especially the popsci ones include a history of scientific methods, not just discoveries.

I think some lionizing is going on here since Newtonian physics can make good predictions on objects below the speed of light, while Einstein's relativity is a different ball game all together. However, that still doesn't answer the role of transcendental idealism in building reality-based models. Your answer delegates transcendental idealism to inspiration, and does not point to it being some sort of a framework or a tool science can use.

I question because I'm curious, not because I'm advocating extreme pragmatism. Btw, I'm not a scientist. If this thread is anything to go by, I'd say you're guilty of what you accuse scientists of.

>>3809467
>>3809467

>muh tribe mudduhfukka

>>3809546
>>Average, forgettable humanoid jealous of the Jewish heritage and sense of community and belonging

Pic related? :)

>>3806558

>We just don't care about your pop-cults
/lit/ cares about its own cults

>>3806765

>Lacan
LOL that obscurantist charlatan

>>3809570
If you're talking about DFW, it's all one enormous ruse. No one here actually likes him.

>>3809586
I actually like him.

>>3809538

Mentioned all the reason his response disgusted me earlier on in the thread:

>>3807760
>>3806356

Enjoy

>>3809561
>>3809561

>>Average, forgettable humanoid jealous of the Jewish heritage and sense of community and belonging

>I'm not a person, just an impersonal mouthpiece of a cultural meme. My existence is defined by others. I obey my masters and writhe in philosophical poverty

>Please fuck my face

>be an average, modern day scientist
>lack philosophical depth
>possess no logical coherence
>what is metaphysics, epistemology, phenomenology, logic and philosophy of science?
>thanks to the widespread social constructs of einsteinian stereotype, glorious instrumentalism (science-explains-it-all), technological advancement and its 'usefulness', physics is the zenith of intelligentsia.
>did i mention i have a phd in physics and am more intelligent than you?

>>3809645

Dude has a degree in philosophy from Stanford and a Ph.D in neuroscience.

>>3807760
Actually, the Drummer Rigby debacle is a perfect Western exemplification for this.

>>3809649
Then clearly those programmes aren't particularly good, if he's this much of a facile cretin.

>>3809664

You haven't read anything of him and you've probably listened to him for roughly 20 minutes.

And you even thought he was a physicist. Retard.

But of course you are more sophisticated and knowledgeable than him.

>>3809674
I didn't fucking say that. He has 2 BAs, in English and Philosophy, and PhD in neuroscience.

>>3809649
i wasn't speaking of harris per se; but pushing a caricature of the average scientist/layman interested in science

he's not that far off from my satire, though

>>3809614
Islam needs to go, though, regardless of whether Harris utilises deceptive tactics.

>>3809691

Pretty much. How many Jews behead people?

,,,,exactly.

>>3809718
As a side note, I lived in Saudi Arabia for 10 years. They used to do beheadings and amputations around the back of Bhs, in Al Khobar. Shit was nasty.

>>3809691
Islam is socially more defended by Christianity. It's not going anywhere.

>>3805693
Marketers are still using the ideas of Freud/Bernays to sell cake mixes and lots of other shit, they just use different terminology these days.

Maybe that's the joke.

Sam Harris can only sell his likeness.

>>3809726
That's because no one knows what its true tenets are.

Evangelism and conversion
Thighing
Subjugation and marital rape of women
Beheadings and torture
The list goes on.

>>3809733
It's hilarious seeing Muslim clerics embarrassingly skirt around these issues when interviewed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rop0XB-nYE

>>3809733
Yeah, and if you say that, people are going to say you're a racist. Which is even dumber because they associate religion with race. It just shows how clueless people can be.

But yeah, I've been to France, had a French girlfriend, and I was basically shunned by people for saying things like that in debates. Islam is just untouchable. From then on, I just stopped talking about it and gave up hope.

>>3809577

I wish the people on /lit/ who dismiss Lacan would find some other insult to use besides Chomsky's.

>>3809740

best skirting i've seen has excuses for muhammad marrying a 7 year old and fucking her when she turned 9

>>3809744
He basically summed it up, though. Lacan's prose is intentionally indecipherable, because he hasn't actually posited anything meaningful, for the most part. Haven't you read the Sokal and Bricmont piece?

>>3809750
Yeah. He broke his own laws. Not that he was the only prophet or whatever to do that, but the constant glorifying of him is just retarded.

>>3809750
Following the Arab Spring, there have been hilariously fallacious debates on Islamic hermeneutics, which basically boil down to:

>LOL NO SHE WASN'T 9, SHE WAS 17; CHECK YOUR FACTS, FAGETS.

>>3809755
Not to mention that it's hard to exemplify a fictitious text. They can basically say whatever they want, which they indeed do. It's impossible to prove them wrong, because they always say WELL THAT'S NOT THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO SO-AND-SO. You simply can't win. Try arguing with muslims on TSR; it's a fucking nightmare.

All you have to do to discredit muslims is to bring up thighing.

>>3809311
>being this obvious of a troll

>>3809757

>wrong interpretation
that's always the holy text cop out

>>3809776
Christians do the same thing with Leviticus. Their texts only serve them when they want them to.

as science it is discredited sure, but as philosophy i think it is still very fruitful. death drive and later expansion of it into the eros/thanatos dynamic by maracuse is amazing and it is one of the concepts that i see the world through very often.

>>3809752
>intentionally indecipherable

This is constantly being explained by Lacan, but perhaps most satisfactorily in the Seminar on the Purloined Letter, the note introducing the Écrits, and his English preface to seminar XI. In broad strokes, it is at the same time his philosophy in praxis, an intentional misrepresentation of himself (Ž.'s "looking awry"), and a way to guard his meaning from what he feels are serious problems with language. It's the latter part that his infamous but generally misunderstood practice of mathesis comes from.

>Sokal

I mention this with some frequency on here, but for as valuable as Sokal's intervention was for academia, that really is a terrible book. Irigaray is the only thinker I feel they're able to deliver a successful critique of; Lacan's chapter is one mischaracterization after another.

>>3809868

throw in some math terms and this comment echoes Lacan's obscure and meaningless prattle

>>3805693
Psychoanalysis has no bearing on psychology/cognitive science these days, since its all a bunch of speculative theories.

The stuff that branched off Freud has been a cynical and idiotic disaster (see Edward Bernays, his daughter, partly Behaviorism/early Psychiatry).

Its difficult to compare Freud with the modern world though. Its sort of like mocking Descartes for being a creationist who didn't think animals were conscious and thinking that mute/deaf people were mentally retarded.

>>3809868
Lacan and "post-modernism" are obscurantists who think that citing Freud or each other amounts to a complex field. Its equally as disastrous when they extend it to replace/counter actual fields (their branching off to linguistics is hilarious, read Julie Kristeva's book on linguistics where she cites 150 year old theories and has no understanding of the field)

As far as I can tell, its the equivalent of theologians discussing the scientific merits through their religion.

>>3809891
Kristeva has some interesting things to say, but only vicariously. The symbolic/ semiotic are nice ideas when translated into literary composition, but they hold very little psychological merit.

>>3809649
>>3809645
Well to be fair, philosophy has always outlived its usefulness once it gets complex enough/reach truisms.

There's really no grounds to push metaphysics/epistemology away from its current direction. The past ones were built on constructions/dogma (Aristoleanism, for example, and dualism) that cannot survive empirical/naturalistic reasoning.

>>3809894
Nah she was actually trying to give ideas about developmental psychology, wrapped up in charlatanism.

She has a youtube video on it, and an atrocious book as well. I'd advise you to read the summary. I have no idea how it translates to literature, though.

>>3809910
It's basically the idea that the semiotic is the equivalent of the ordering facets of language, i.e., grammar and syntax, and that the symbolic is the echolalia, i.e., emotional catharsis and actual content.

>>3809916
Not sure if I read that right.

So semiotics means grammatical use of language and the symbolism are mere repetitions of speech?

243 posts and 24 image replies omitted. Click here to view.

>>3809926
Repetitions of inter-maternal/ infantile language.

Admittedly, the legitimacy of her argument dissolves, here.

>>3809908
>dualism
>cannot survive empirical/naturalistic reasoning.

Not really, no. Minus theism -- sure, but not all-the-way refuted. Read upon some contemporary debates in Philosophy of Mind.

>>3809940
Nah none of them if they remain credible, reject the idea that the mind/consciousness is a product of the physical brain and do not operate independently of it.

Nagel's argument pertains more to the fact that the human mind functions in one particular way based on our genes and are ultimately limited by that.

Qualia doesn't explicitly reject materialism , it only states the limits of understanding the world through science.

>>3805733
Hey, fuck you. Freud's theories were revolutionary and are still applicable today.

>>3810125
Hardly still applicable today. Only perhaps his theory of some thoughts being unconscious still hold true in a neuroscientific sense.