/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11731341]

A lot of people put Harris and Peterson in the same boat in terms of pseud-ness but I honestly think Harris is a full standard deviation worse. For all Peterson’s misrepresentation of post structuralism and analytic psychology, at *least* he has a cursory understanding of philosophy. Harris either doesn’t understand or fully dismisses undergrad level philosophy, is a bull headed logical positivist and uncritical scientist advocate.

[Anonymous No.11731354]

*correction, I mean *scientism* advocate

[Anonymous No.11731356]

This seems totally backwards. Harris is clearly very well read in analytic philosophy and knows at least some continental. He destroyed Peterson in their debate and demonstrated far beyond Peterson's level of understanding.


also he knows eastern stuff due to being into meditation

[Anonymous No.11731367]

Harris is the definition of a pseud. He pretends to know literally everything and does not outwardly consider the fact that he might not know something.

[Anonymous No.11731380]

>>11731356
>He destroyed Peterson in their debate
No he didn't, no one was 'destroyed'. I don't know why people keep saying this.

[Anonymous No.11731383]

>>11731356

Which debate? The one where they were discussing the nature of truth? If so, Peterson obviously knew more about the metaphysics of truth than Harris. Harris basically said, “I remember reading William James in my undergrad and disagreed with it” which is something only a very uncritical person would say without adding more context as to why they disagreed

Also, Harris only seems to have relatively deep knowledge of analytic philosophers relevant to neurophilosophy

[Anonymous No.11731396]

>>11731383
No he didn't you have no idea what you are talking about. Harris clearly understand what was going on better than Peterson. Go clean your room or whatever it is you people do

[Anonymous No.11731397]

>>11731380

Because YouTube deep “philosophy” fans think everything has to be a damn Tyson/Holyfield spectacle where epistemology validity is established via “owning” or “destroying” your opponent

[Anonymous No.11731405]

>>11731396

I’m not a fan of Peterson either bucko

[Anonymous No.11731409]

>>11731397
it's actually because harris did in fact dismantle peterson. that's just how it is even if debate is not the best format for real philosophical discussion

[Anonymous No.11731437]

>>11731409

I take it you’re a positivist? If that you position, fine. But at least demonstrate a knowledge of the variety of epistemological positions...this is something Harris never does. At the most he says, “oh yeah, I read about that and thought it was bullshit”

[Anonymous No.11731438]

>>11731367
>He pretends to know literally everything

and somehow everything he knows supports exactly the sort of opinions and worldview a bougie Joo from elite coastal family would believe. He reads NYT and new yorker and whatever books upper middle class normies are buzzing about and likes most of them.

You kids that are like 19 or 20 right now didn't have the benefit of seeing Sam apologize for the Iraq war in the mid 2000's with laughably sophistical syllogisms, about how mean a guy Saddam was, because Saddam was bad and hurt a lot of people OK, so it's OBJECTIVELY a good thing to get rid of a bad guy, right? So air strikes for Israel are OBJECTIVELY good OK? its difficult to express how nauseating it was to watch him spout this kind of sophomoric crap while every 3 days another car bomb went off killing 80 people

also he calls himself a "neuroscientist" all the time when he bought his PHD with money from a fake charity (which only existed for the sake of funding his phd, and disappeared immediately afterwards) at the height of New Atheist street cred and didn't do any of the scientific work for his own thesis.

sometimes the people coming after him force me to like him a little bit (e.g. the Ben Affleck incident) but when it comes down to it Sam's a hack. He doesn't have very deep understanding of meditation or neuroscience or much of anything he presents himself as an expert about. His public persona is disingenuous - he's a glorified journalist and podcaster who gets introduced as "philosopher and neuroscientist Sam Harris" at TED. At best Harris is to these fields what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is to astrophysics.

[Anonymous No.11731455]

>>11731409
Sam Harris got btfo by fucking William Lane Craig. He’s a ninny. Start with the Greeks or cease posting here.

[Anonymous No.11731470]

To anyone defending Harris:

Harris is an absolute joke in academic philosophy. Peterson is more of an annoyance because he half ass understands some things and has politically egregious ideas but, for whatever it’s worth, he’s at least got some academic rigor to him

[Anonymous No.11731474]

This is not a board for the discussion of pseudo-intellectuals. Please do not reply to this thread, OP doesn't even put in the effort to disguise his thread as such as the other Harris thread does by name-dropping his book

[Anonymous No.11731476]

>>11731397
The most recent debate had that fucking annoying crowd that'd cheer and break the conversation every time there was some mild retort one guy made on the other. If I were any of the three on stage I'd be embarrassed about the platform and tell them to be fucking quiet.

[Anonymous No.11731480]

>>11731470
He's a joke in the scientific community as well.

[Anonymous No.11731484]

>>11731474

I acknowledged them both as pseudo intellectuals explicitly, tho

[Anonymous No.11731491]

>>11731484
And this thread is off-topic

[Anonymous No.11731624]

>>11731341
>that time in their debate when Peterson reminded Harris that Kant thought space and time were a priori intuitions, which Peterson somehow thought would bolster his idiotic idea of an a priori (but still somehow relative) value structure, and then after which he ridiculed Harris for believing in “transcendental rationality”.

I feel like Harris could have really humiliated Peterson in that debate, but felt merciful.

[Anonymous No.11731643]

>>11731438
>You kids that are like 19 or 20 right now didn't have the benefit of seeing Sam apologize for the Iraq war in the mid 2000's with laughably sophistical syllogisms, about how mean a guy Saddam was, because Saddam was bad and hurt a lot of people OK, so it's OBJECTIVELY a good thing to get rid of a bad guy, right? So air strikes for Israel are OBJECTIVELY good OK? its difficult to express how nauseating it was to watch him spout this kind of sophomoric crap while every 3 days another car bomb went off killing 80 people
Isn't that Hitchens?

[Anonymous No.11731651]

I didn't want to see this face today, yet there are two Harris threads.
Cease.

[Anonymous No.11731665]

>>11731643
no
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/

[Anonymous No.11731739]

Sam Harris hasn't wrote anything even remotely as thorough and original as Maps of Meaning

[Anonymous No.11732044]

>>11731341
>Harris doesn't pay due respect to the utterly unproven metaphysical distinction or name drop enough continental philsophers, therefore he's a pseud.

OK his politics are garbage, but giving more attention to scientifically grounded theories does not make him pseud. Science has a long track record of predictive power, whereas the mere existence of the 'metaphysical' has no supporting evidence.

[Anonymous No.11732634]

>>11731739
Forgot your trips, Dec.

[Anonymous No.11732815]

>>11731739
This

[Anonymous No.11732939]

>>11731356
Harris's knowledge of 'eastern stuff' is actually pretty superficial.

[Anonymous No.11732950]

>>11731438
This, he is a fraud who skates by because of his verbal IQ

[Anonymous No.11733007]

>>11732044
Why does everyone here think that metaphysics = "the study of spooky spirits and God and shit"

[Anonymous No.11733213]

Sometimes I visit r/samharris, out of some perverted masochistic pleasure, I suppose.
I still haven't gotten used to people there being that stupid/wrong, while at the same time thinking they're not stupid/wrong.
Any books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.11733339]

>>11733213
But that seems to be r/chapotraphouse's second home. That and Peterson fans to the exclusion and condemnation of Stiller.

[Anonymous No.11733356]

Trash is trash. Pseuds are pseuds. The should both be culled.

[Anonymous No.11733367]

>>11731455
>Sam Harris got btfo by fucking William Lane Craig
Based WLC always tends to btfo the sort of reddit talking head type 'intellectual' personified by Harris. His debate with worst Hitchens is full on 'belly laugh til it hurts' tier. I only wish Dawkins had taken him on, the butthurt could have solved the energy crisis

[Anonymous No.11733368]

>>11733339
>>11733213
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.11733395]

>>11733368
I've only started browsing leddit after people like you joined this place and made it impossible to discuss anything other than pop-politics.

[Anonymous No.11733396]

While they are both pretty bad philosophers, at least Peterson is a good psychologist objectively. His last book is garbage but I remember we once watched some TED talk of SamHarris in school and I started to laugh. Nobody liked it, as we were used to Nietzsche, Aristotle, Badiou, Kant... He's a joke. Some know-it-all jew who could make a thing like incest or a ww3 sound logical to Americans. So Peterson is clearly the lesser of two evils here.

[Anonymous No.11733406]

>>11731341
Maybe you're just a standard deviation below science.

[Anonymous No.11733409]

>>11733396
truly a sad state of affairs when even Harris is out of the realm of your comprehension mate.

[Anonymous No.11733412]

Harris is just another pop culture wannabe philosopher Ted X cool idea bro man. He touched the race/IQ third rail and backed off fast, retuning to the much tougher fight against theism, lol. So that showed me his intellectual bravery is non-existent, ala Dawkins, etc. He's only accepted by the status quo so long as he sticks to the approved subjects.

[Anonymous No.11733418]

>>11731438

>also he calls himself a "neuroscientist" all the time when he bought his PHD with money from a fake charity

Got a source for this buddy. I've heard it thrown around a few times but it seems a little too perfect to be true.

[Anonymous No.11733424]

>>11733418
https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/

[Anonymous No.11733436]

>>11733424
>https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/neuroscientist-sam-harris/
Yet another apologist 'embracing faith website'. Let me guess, American Protestantism. Probably evangelical as well, yeah? The gonorrhoea of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.11733438]

>>11733436
>everything I don't like is christian propoganda

[Anonymous No.11733442]

>>11733438
Nigger, the blog defines itself as such, are you clinically retarded?

[Anonymous No.11733455]

>>11733418
Do your own research, at the very least the situation is questionable and he didn't do any of his research or experiments

[Anonymous No.11733494]

>>11733412
Dawkins at least stood up for Charles Murray

[Anonymous No.11733613]

Can any of you actually stand listening to Harris for more than a minute? The guy is unbelievably smug, arrogant, and douchey. His tone of voice is the most off-putting thing I've ever heard. He stares down his giant nose at everyone he talks to. *spit*

[Anonymous No.11733621]

>salient

[Anonymous No.11733737]

>>11731356
>he unironically used the word "destroyed"
Please go back to the youtube comment section, underage children are not welcome here.

[Anonymous No.11733757]

>>11731470
>Harris is an absolute joke in academic philosophy
And academic philosophy has been a joke for decades.

[Anonymous No.11733772]

>>11733613
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11733800]

>>11733757
philosophy has always been a joke from the pre-socratics to now

[Anonymous No.11734216]

>>11733800
t. Freddie

[Anonymous No.11734341]

>>11731341
Harris is primarily undermined by the fact that he's a kike, and that all of his views just happen to correspond to supporting neoconservative foreign policy and Israeli political interests.

Peterson is just an idiot. He takes Jungian analysis too seriously but he's earnest.

Between duplicity and stupidity I'll take the latter every time. Scratching the service of Sam Harris reveals instantly that either he is far, far stupider than he presents to be, or that his ideas are all fronts to disguise his actual motives. Scratching the surface of Peterson merely reveals naivety.

[Anonymous No.11734602]

>>11733007
From what I understand, at some point people who believe in magic and shit started using the word to describe what they believe in, and the "skeptic" community followed suit because all they know how to do is say "[thing other people believe] isn't real"

[Anonymous No.11734631]

>>11733409
Your love life is a sad state of affairs lad

[Anonymous No.11734658]

What's wrong with Kermit? The worst I've heard from him is trying to explain his views on God. Although it's fair enough to say it's a complicated problem which a lot of people don't give enough thought, I haven't seen him give it a crack.

[Anonymous No.11734687]

>>11733800
I disagree. I think it becomes a joke when philosophers overspecialize, when they become grammarians and fail to address the most pressing ethical issues. I may not agree with Harris on much, but at least he's not shying away from the present, cloistered away in some unimportant philosophy department taking weak potshots. Harris is a lot more important than the nonentities in academia who criticize him.

[Anonymous No.11734923]

>>11733613
He reminds me of a cult leader

[Anonymous No.11735002]

>>11731341
Sam Harris permanently BTFO:
https://historyforatheists.com/2018/08/sam-harris-horrible-histories/

[Anonymous No.11735999]

Is Harris really a fraud or is this thread just full of edgy teenage pseudointellectuals?

[Anonymous No.11736170]

>>11734923

Not even that desu. He's more like an annoying college professor who thinks he's hot shit even though he teaches and doesn't do.

[Anonymous No.11736194]

>>11733613

When he's doing speeches, he has a really smug tone, and he pronounces his arguments like "I just served you guys up some knowledge, you're welcome"

That's annoying, but I think during his podcast and other conversations and debates i've seen, he has a much more humble approach, and its almost annoying in the other direction, like he's so hesitant to claim anything

[Anonymous No.11736207]

>>11733339
>>11733333
sorry

[Anonymous No.11736225]

>>11735999
Both

[Anonymous No.11736233]

Peterson is a Koch shill
Is Sam Harris as well?

[Anonymous No.11736240]

>>11734658
This. He mostly just did evidence-based psychology stuff and liberal politics originally, but because he's religious in a Jungian sense everyone jumps on him to explain it and then get mad that it's Jungian and not purely evidence-based. Now it's all anyone can talk about.

It's partly his fault for feeding into it. He probably thinks he's doing a good thing and doesn't realise that no one who likes him for it actually listens to him. They just like that a guy with a high verbal intellect says that god is real. Even though Peterson says "I don't believe god is real, I act as if he is." There's a weird line that Jungians walk where they get into religion for functional, practical reasons, but in doing so successfully, it becomes hard to disentangle your sincere belief and your psychological assertions.

[Anonymous No.11736248]

>>11733367
>worst Hitchens
>on /lit/
oof

[Anonymous No.11736255]

>>11736240
>i dont believe god is real, i act as if he is
pretty cool though, imho. essentially makes peterson a chaos magician

[Anonymous No.11736277]

>>11732939
Its clearly above yours. Its superficial interms of buddhist masters/scholar's understanding of it, but his understanding of buddhist ideas are clearly above the superficial understanding of much of the common people.

He's got a fairly decent grasp of philosophy and logic but he's too stuck on analytical approach imo.

Peterson on the other hand is too much of a "dude god" lmao.

[Anonymous No.11736297]

if you guys are going to listen to a debate about the autism over truth why not read analytic philosophy instead?

[Anonymous No.11736322]

Both disagree with Ayn Rand but the latter at least respects her while the former exhibits weapons grade butthurt and mental gymnastics in response to her.
So on that metric alone I know who to laugh at the least.

[Anonymous No.11736381]

>>11731341
I haven't read nor do I plan to read Harris, but I end up in social situations where people are regurgitating Sam Harris stuff and reccomending his videos.

Someone please explain if/how Harris avoids the anti-natalist trap of objectivism. I have read David Benetar, and Sam Harris seems to start with the same assumptions regarding human existence, consciousness, and suffering.
Benetar shows that the most logical solution is the organized cessation of all conscious life capable of suffering.
Harris seems to imply we should all suck each others dicks and study particle physics while complimenting each other on how smart we all are and how dumb those other people are.

[Anonymous No.11736512]

>>11736381
Objectivist here. In the Moral Landscape what
Sam Harris is doing is taking a problem Ayn Rand solved, getting butthurt over it's capitalist implications, and attempting to reframe it under his socialist politics and determinist epistemology.
It's striking and even a bit hilarious to me when reading it how "Fuck. Ayn. Rand." colors every inch of it. Knowledge of Rand's life-reference axiom and stressing that the contextuality of concepts matter make this reading a tired rehashing of old problems mucked up by a man out of his depth

[Anonymous No.11736711]

>>11731341
He's a racist anti-trumpist secular jew, how positively ironic.

[Anonymous No.11736759]

>>11731354
>scientism
It's scientism when it doesn't agree with our ideology.

[Anonymous No.11736771]

>>11731341
Disregard pseuds, read Steven Pinker

[Anonymous No.11736881]

>>11731643
>>11731438
That only failed because the government decided to pull out.

[Anonymous No.11737190]

>>11736759
This. But it's unavoidable on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11737220]

>>11736771
But Pinker is a pseud

[Anonymous No.11737250]

>>11736771
ass

[Anonymous No.11737277]

>>11736771
you have to go back

[Anonymous No.11737440]

>>11737250
Your fortune: clean room

[Anonymous No.11737759]

>>11733367
>on atheism
WLC is a master of circular thinking. He’s utterly dishonest. The ideas he pretends to believe for money are deeply pernicious mental viruses and he shouldn’t be allowed to speak to children ever.

[Anonymous No.11738045]

>>11736277
>Its clearly above yours.
Wrong kiddo

>Its superficial interms of buddhist masters/scholar's understanding of it, but his understanding of buddhist ideas are clearly above the superficial understanding of much of the common people.

Buddhism is only a small portion of eastern thought which extends far beyond Buddhism and in certain areas is much better than it. From what I've listened to and read of Harris he doesn't have a great grasp on Buddhism. As to be expected with someone like him he mostly focuses on explaining the more basic elements of Buddhist doctrine like the insights it teaches about suffering and the mind, primarily basing himself on Theravada. For someone who has not studied eastern thought deeply, to hear Harris drone on in his high verbal-IQ but monotone and pedantic voice about basic Buddhist insights may seem revelatory but all he does is really just explain basic entry-level aspects of it, and mostly through the lenses of neuroscience, psychologiy and self-help type of stuff which makes it even worse. If you are already limiting yourself to just Theravada and a few cursory Zen references you are already limiting yourself greatly, but to then mainly explore them insofar as they relate to the above topics is to turn it all into a useless caricature. I suppose this is to be expected though, many westerners gravitate towards the areas of eastern thought that are closest to western thought and then try to further distort it to fit it into the pre-conceived notion of eastern thought that they already have. I say all this as someone who is not trying to tear him down and I respect him for defending Murray and taking on Klein etc but if you unironically think he is a good source from which to learn about the essentials of eastern thought you're completely wrong.

[Anonymous No.11738054]

Harris the greatest thinker of our time.

[Anonymous No.11738064]

>>11736771
ASS

[Anonymous No.11738103]

>>11736512
Thanks for the reply. I completely overlooked Rand in this discussion.
I suspect my associates went for Sam Harris once they ran out of Dawkins and Hitchens stuff to read. I feel like if I told them to look into Rand they'd REEEEEEEEEEEEE because they're told she's a right-wing mad woman. To phrase it in Harris-speak. Having a moral duty to make everybody else's life suck less sucks for me. I think your post has tricked me into looking into Harris's arguments against rational self-interest.

[Anonymous No.11738121]

>>11736277
Harris OBVIOUSLY thinks the concept of samsara is bullshit. So his understanding of Budhism is necessarily superficial. He just likes it because he can reference dukkha and most yuppies will think it's a neat and novel idea.

[Anonymous No.11738135]

>>11737759
Congratulations, you don't understand his arguments. You are likely unqualified to comment on the matter and should first familiarize yourself with some basic logic and, *gasp*, good analytic philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11738144]

>>11736277
Harris could, if he wanted to write a scathing analysis of Zen's irrationality. In his reference frame Zen should seem as retarded as Christianity because it relies so heavily on internal intuition that cannot be expressed in terms of external logical axioms. Which is not science.

[Anonymous No.11738312]

What a fucking shit thread, I hope you are all happy with yourselves

[Anonymous No.11739006]

>>11738135
I know bullshit when I hear it dearest Anon. You don’t need to know all the ins and outs of the Final Fantasy series to know it’s just a game for children. WLC just squirts a load of ink in the water and can’t answer a straight question to save his life.

[Anonymous No.11739022]

>>11733613
This. He's insufferable. He's like Ben Shapiro turned up to 11. And the worst part is, he doesn't even realize it.

[Anonymous No.11740087]

>>11731470
>Harris is an absolute joke in academic philosophy.
He's the but of snarky jokes of people who are mad no one respects them. Big deal.

[Anonymous No.11740097]

>>11739022
I think Shapiro's more intolerable.

[Anonymous No.11740318]

>>11733007
>>11734602

The term 'metaphysics' contains an implicit distinction that there can be things 'beyond nature', a distinction which there is no evidence or convincing argument for.

Even if we consider it merely deficient terminology, many axiomatically accept a truly 'metaphysical' distinction as an unquestionable bulkhead from which to argue for 'spooky spirits' and other nonsense.You demonstrate this habit yourself when you imply that establishing whether or not something is real isn't the most fundamental of standards.

[Anonymous No.11740327]

>>11740318
>The term 'metaphysics' contains an implicit distinction that there can be things 'beyond nature', a distinction which there is no evidence or convincing argument for.
Somebody needs to start with the greeks

[Anonymous No.11740376]

>>11740318

A lot of metaphysics deals with things that just can’t be empirically verified...like epistemology (nature of knowledge and how we know what we know). Cognitive science has some stake in this but, even then, philosophy/metaphysics is a huge branch of cog sci.

[Anonymous No.11740402]

>>11736381
Funny, I once heard Harris argue that having as many humans as possible was a moral good. Basically that most people prefer to exist, so we can infer that it's good to give that opportunity to as many as possible.

I only agree with that to a point since -- even with technological adaptations -- the overall human experience reaches a point of diminishing and then negative returns with population growth. Population density can be a major cause of suffering, not to mention ecological destruction. Anyhow, doesn't seem like he's anti-natalist.

[Anonymous No.11740458]

>>11740318
>The term 'metaphysics' contains an implicit distinction that there can be things 'beyond nature'
Only in the same sense that the laws of physics are "beyond nature"

[Anonymous No.11740475]

Harris's axioms:
>Well-being exists objectively and should be maximized in the individual
>Well-being of the collective should be maximized
Until someone proves to me that these are, as he suggests, scientific facts, his ethics is just scientific Epicureanism that necessitates throwing all metaphysics out the window

And then comment on why his neuroscientific "evidence" that represents the crux of his argument (that facts and values are indistinguishable) is valid rather than fallacious by reverse-inferring the origin of brain-states.

Please don't discuss this pseudo-intellectual who peddles shady doctoral work turned non-peer-reviewed best-selling book as food for plebians (and that's his most scientifically sound work)

[Anonymous No.11740477]

>>11740327
Great argument.

>>11740376
That's fine -- nothing wrong with speculation -- but just call it what it is, abstraction. Don't act like heavily abstracted concepts with no predictive power should be taken just as seriously as more demonstrable theories.

Also, knowledge = information with predictive power. Empirical verification is the heart of knowledge. Having less than 100% certainty/completeness of knowledge does not invalidate that.

[Anonymous No.11740485]

>>11740458
Ok there's your assertion, argument/examples to follow?

[Anonymous No.11740509]

>>11740477

I don’t mean this in a condescending way but you should get this book because there are a lot of uncritical assumptions in what you said and I don’t really have the time (nor am I clever enough) to refute it all point by point.

[Anonymous No.11740532]

>>11740475
So because the well-being of invdividuals varies (since they vary), it doesn't objectively exist (subjectivity is just shorthand for objective differences)? Then, if it does exist, is it not normative for beings to have a bias towards their well-being? Is survival and reproduction not the function of life?

The argument for the collective follows from the individual, as cooperating with a collective makes achieving well-being easier (usually). Also, individuals wouldn't exist without collectives.

[Anonymous No.11740547]

>>11740477

Also, a lot of it is about how our concepts frame, organize and prioritize knowledge (empirical or otherwise) science itself constantly is constantly by underscored by metaphysics. It’s not just about “speculation”

[Anonymous No.11740561]

>>11740547
Ok, and from whence do your concepts begin and develop?

[Anonymous No.11740595]

>>11740561

Our minds. I cited cognitive science earlier because I think it’s a branch of science where “empirical” research of the mental world and metaphysics meet head to head. People in that field realize that raw data can only take us so far...there’s where philosophy comes (which is a major branch of it)

[Anonymous No.11740601]

>>11740532
>So because the well-being of invdividuals varies (since they vary), it doesn't objectively exist (subjectivity is just shorthand for objective differences)?
I didn't argue for or implying this, I'm just looking for proof that what Harris said is scientifically true, which he posits it is.
>Then, if it does exist, is it not normative for beings to have a bias towards their well-being?
This is crossing the is-ought line; whether or not humans do have this bias does not imply that they should or should not have it. Harris argues this is scientifically true (the normative case)
>Is survival and reproduction not the function of life?
I don't know, is it?

The second part of your reply makes perfect sense if these questions are cleared up

[Anonymous No.11740605]

>>11740595

Forgot my image

[Anonymous No.11740666]

>>11740595
What is the mind and what removes it from everything else? Can you give me some examples of concepts you were born with?

[Anonymous No.11740678]

REMINDER. this is how you solve the is-ought problem.

[Anonymous No.11740686]

>>11740666

If you think I’m hinting at mind-body dualism, I’m not...and that’s not the point. The point is that metaphysics is a useful distinction because it relies on methods that are a priori, non-empirical, etc.

[Anonymous No.11740697]

>>11740666

Ironically, what we’re doing right now is metaphysics. We’re trying to define the nature of things a priori, without making direct empirical observations of the world around us.

[Anonymous No.11740725]

>>11740601
No, I didn't ask whether beings 'ought' to favour their well-being, I asked whether it was normative. It is, because otherwise they wouldn't exist otherwise and all would be moot. I would say that's as strong an 'ought' as we can establish (although strictly I don't think oughts exist or that the is/ought distinction has been adequately established).

It is, only life which survives and reproduces exists. Without existence, no potential secondary experiences are possible. Everything about living beings exists to accomplish those basic needs. Traits which become maladaptive generally don't last long.

[Anonymous No.11740736]

>>11740678
REMINDER. Don't just assume the existence of an is-ought 'problem' to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11740764]

>>11740736
>>11740725
>is-ought problem isnt a problem
funny how much i read this... but only in harris threads

[Anonymous No.11740772]

>>11740686
Fine, but just call it abstraction then. You've gotta see that the neutral categorical term 'metaphysical' (if neutrality ever was the case) has been twisted into the notion of a distinct 'other-realm' without that distinction having been established.

>>11740697
>>11740686
Can you give me examples of knowledge that is literally prior to experience?

[Anonymous No.11740789]

>>11740764
He seems to be a materialist, so it isn't surprising that this would be a central point of contention. I'm sure it comes up all the time in threads where materialism is an aspect.

[Anonymous No.11740830]

The is-ought “problem” is a self-constructed problem that tells us nothing of reality itself other than the imprecision of language. It’s an example of how semantics has got us by the balls in terms of how we conceptualize reality at the meta level. It’s a trap and diversion from deeper, more meaningful problems. Many great minds have been lured to their death by its siren-like allure.

[Anonymous No.11740874]

>>11740772

Metaphysics is the term commonly used, so I use it. It’s etymological implication of otherness is most likely a vestige of Cartesian dualism, so blame Descartes. That idea has largely fallen out of favor and modern metaphysics is not as you characterize it. Is it a word with historical baggage? Sure, but a lot of our language is.

As far as knowledge prior to experience. Mathematics and conclusions based on deductive logic is generally used as an example. You can literally just read th wiki article on a priori knowledge rather than trust some guy on 4chan. People smarter than any of us have been hashing this out for decades.

[Anonymous No.11740884]

>>11740830
its definitely not semantics you bozo, i suggest you do a quick google search and read about it, its very easy to understand

[Anonymous No.11740905]

>>11740830
Wow, not many anons (none I've seen) get this. Truly critical thinking is such a breath of fresh air.

[Anonymous No.11740942]

>>11740874
Fair enough, I assure you that you're in the minority though.

Ok so mathematical knowledge. The thing is, you didn't know 1+1=2 until you experienced it. You can follow that chain back to the first conscious being and see that no truly 'a priori' knowledge exists. You can say that the universe has properties independent of experience, but there is no knowledge without a being and some level (even if minor) of abstraction. Nothing is known without first observing properties, even speculation relies on some initial observation.

[Anonymous No.11740997]

>>11740942

Minority of what? People who use the term metaphysics? I’m not, with regards to people who discuss philosophy.

I think you’re kind of muttling terms but I think I get what you’re implying. A priori conclusions are, simply put, ones you can reach purely in your own head and from the convenience of your armchair (like a mathematical proof). Whether or not that ability is based in some prior experience or evolutionary is irrelevant to the definition of a priori reasoning but relevant in other fields. For example there’s a book called Embodied Mathematics that argues mathematical knowledge (and logic) are rooted in our spatial-somatic evolution (which relies on “real world” experience).

[Anonymous No.11741024]

>>11740772
>the neutral categorical term 'metaphysical' (if neutrality ever was the case) has been twisted into the notion of a distinct 'other-realm' without that distinction having been established

Not among people who study metaphysics. This kind of semantic twisting only matters among dilettantes and YouTube commenters.

Causality is a metaphysical concept, by the way, and it girds all empirical inquiries into the nature of things. You really can't even say a sentence without running into some metaphysical concept.

[Anonymous No.11741034]

>>11740942
Yikes, Hume BTFO and now Kant BTFO
We're really getting places in this thread, this is monumental

[Anonymous No.11741044]

>>11741034
Harris solved philosophy, it's over

[Anonymous No.11741058]

>>11741024
Glad to hear it.

Really... Causality isn't an observable property (at least on the macro scale)? I think the property is what the method is predicated on, not the reverse.

>>11740997
Fair enough, I just see many people using these terms as hard boundaries as opposed to useful categorizations.

[Anonymous No.11741064]

>>11741034
I'm sure you can find some philosopher who BTFO'd both before they were ever born, but troll harder.

[Anonymous No.11741075]

>>11740318
>You demonstrate this habit yourself when you imply that establishing whether or not something is real isn't the most fundamental of standards.
My point, which I didn't feel like taking the time to fully flesh out, was that "skeptics" are so focused on saying which categories of things real that for the most part they don't even bother to think about whether or not the categories they're talking in terms of are even valid.

The category "supernatural", for instance, only makes sense within speciific religious contexts, such as Christianity, in which God is literally supposed to be above nature. In the Greek or Hindu religions, many gods are conceptualized as aspects of nature itself, not above or otherwise separate from it, so "supernatural" and the natural-supernatural dichotomy just aren't valid in that context.

To use the word "supernatural", then, implies that you accept the Christian conception of the relationship between the spiritual and the material as the correct one, even while denying that the spiritual exists, which of course makes no sense and just goes to show how "skeptics" haven't divested themselves of Christian thought as fully as they'd like to believe.

Similarly, when skeptics use the word "metaphysical" as though it were a valid label for ghosts, gods, and magic, they lend those concepts the air of respectability that the word "metaphysics" has attached to it (which I'm pretty sure was the whole point of appropriating that word in the first place) and also out themselves as being just as ignorant of the actual meaning of "metaphysics" as the metaphysical believers are.

[Anonymous No.11741084]

>>11741064
What did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.11741088]

>>11741075
Words aquire different connotations with time, and even in philosophy the same term can often refer very different things. Pretty dumb post

[Anonymous No.11741125]

>>11741058
>Causality isn't an observable property (at least on the macro scale)? I think the property is what the method is predicated on, not the reverse

Causality usually understood as the counterfactual that If A leads to B, then without A there would be no B. But this a non-rigorous understanding of causation. As we know from QFT, causal connections are malleable based on who observes them. Further, the laws of physics are temporally symmetrical, yet we only perceive them in one direction, our arrow of space-time. Why is this the case? Why is causality not backward, or even switching direction all the time? The laws that we understand govern our universe don't disallow this, so what's the deal?

So by acting like smug and claiming causality is such a simple and observable feature you're making what Whitehead called an "appeal to intuition" regarding causality, which he believed absolutely necessary. You even acknowledged that it only seems to be an observable feature on macroscopic scales, which itself raises a metaphysical question about whether there can be different sorts of causal relations.

[Anonymous No.11741145]

>>11741075
Really, so when I say 'magical' it means I secretly believe that magic exists? I can't referring to it as an abstract concept which I doubt could ever be concrete?

'Metaphysical' translates to 'beyond nature'. This is clumsy at best... Unless your definition of 'nature' is restricted to the biological, a hard separation between the physical and something else is implied. AFAIK, skeptics usually use the term 'supernatural' to object to god, so I don't think it's skeptics who are trashing the supposed respectability of the term... The issue tends to be philosohpers (and dilettantes) using the term 'metaphysical' as a hard boundary.

[Anonymous No.11741150]

>>11741075

best post

[Anonymous No.11741155]

>>11741088
>Words aquire different connotations with time, and even in philosophy the same term can often refer very different things.

Yeah man it was crazy when I finished reading Aristotle's Metaphysics and then I picked up Being and Time and Heidegger spent the whole book talking about how his mom's ghost told him to become a Nazi. I guess all words change meaning. Or did metaphysics actually function as a stable category of philosophical inquiry for the past 2500 years and you don't know what your talking about

[Anonymous No.11741167]

>>11741125
The deal is that apparent causality is very relevant to our predictive powers, and we wouldn't even be investigating non-causality without having employed methods inspired by apparent causality. Whatever it is we're actually observing, it precedes our conceptualization of it.

[Anonymous No.11741175]

>>11741145
>Really, so when I say 'magical' it means I secretly believe that magic exists? I can't referring to it as an abstract concept which I doubt could ever be concrete?
I didn't say that using "supernatural" means you believe in the supernatural.
The word "supernatural" universally implies a natural-supernatural dichotomy, thus to use the word supernatural as a valid category – even if you reject the existence of all things within that category – implies acceptance of that dichotomy. The problem is, that dichotomy is based on the doctrines of a specific religion and makes no sense in a secular context.

[Anonymous No.11741186]

>>11741155
Appeal to authority, and beside the point.

[Anonymous No.11741191]

>>11741155
A singular outlier (not even true in this case, metaphysics is used in a different sense by the traditionalists) doesn't disprove a trend (to give you an example of this, Spinoza using terminology from scholastics in a different sense) you brainlet

[Anonymous No.11741194]

>>11741175
No it doesnt, if I reject the existence of all things under that category then it follows that I reject the existence of the set itself. It's just an abstraction.

[Anonymous No.11741204]

>>11741167
>Whatever it is we're actually observing, it precedes our conceptualization of it.
Causality is an abstraction that refers to the relation between different events. What we observe is that relation, not causality itself.

[Anonymous No.11741213]

>>11741167
>apparent causality is very relevant to our predictive powers

It's the entire ground of our predictive powers, prediction would be impossible without it. Yet you don't know what causality is or why it is or why it sometimes isn't. like the concept of Being or non-Being, you can't even say what you mean when you speak of it. All you've got is intuition, and any attempt to plumb deeper than that is, necessarily, a metaphysical inquiry.

I'm just giving an example of an area where metaphysics is not only relevant, but essential for any understanding. And if you think that just because our empirical inquiries work that we don't need to work to understand their underpinnings, then you mustn't care about finding the truth of reality at all. So why bother asking after any of it, scientifically or otherwise?

[Anonymous No.11741225]

>>11741186
>>11741191
Unserious objections get unserious answers. If you're gonna make a whack-ass postulation like "Metaphysics is useless because it means god now" then ya better back that shit up. Because as it is that's not even an argument. It's just a false sentence with no logic to fall back on.

[Anonymous No.11741230]

>>11741204
Yet our concept of causility is an attempt to describe that relation, so clearly inspired by it. Meaning concepts do not precede properties.

[Anonymous No.11741257]

>>11741225
>emotionally and impulsively accuses others of being unserious

That was not my argument against the term, and I have presented my logical argument against it above (which you are not bothering to engage with).

[Anonymous No.11741258]

>>11741194
I'm not talking about accepting the existence, I'm talking about accepting the validity, which is a different thing altogether.

[Anonymous No.11741269]

>>11741230
>Meaning concepts do not precede properties.

So causality is an entity that can have properties? Cool. How about Being? Does Being have properties too? If so what are they, and while we're at it can I get causality's properties too? Change would be nice to assign properties to as well.

[Anonymous No.11741297]

>>11741213
None of those concepts can exist without 1) a being capable of conceptualization 2) something for that being to experience and conceptualize.

There's nothing wrong with speculating on how things might work, but even speculation relies on prior experience. Nice strawman though.

[Anonymous No.11741301]

>>11741257
Oh I've been engaging with that, but the anon you replied to made a pretty long and interesting post which you brushed off and engaged with in a manner nobody could call serious. "Words aquire different connotations with time"? Come on, man. That wouldn't pass muster in the first week of an intro logic class. You didn't even spell acquire correctly. Honestly you did nothing sound in that post and it's kinda pathetic that you're sticking up for yourself about it.

[Anonymous No.11741313]

>>11741258
Yeah, I accept the validity of the terms 'magical' or 'supernatural' to refer to things that don't exist.

[Anonymous No.11741316]

>>11741145
>'Metaphysical' translates to 'beyond nature'. This is clumsy at best... Unless your definition of 'nature' is restricted to the biological, a hard separation between the physical and something else is implied.

>The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá, "beyond", "upon" or "after") and φυσιkά (physiká, "physics").[32] It was first used as the title for several of Aristotle's works, because they were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions. The prefix meta- ("after") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics.

[Anonymous No.11741323]

>>11741225
>Unserious objections get unserious answers.
You must have mistaken me for the other anon, my first post itt was the "words change meaning" one

[Anonymous No.11741324]

>>11741301
That wasn't me, but he did have a point. You still haven't actually demonstrated how he doesn't (which should be simple if it's intro logic).

[Anonymous No.11741331]

>>11741297
>None of those concepts can exist without 1) a being capable of conceptualization

So if all sapient life was erased then so too would Being? As in the substantive form of Being concerned with entities existing? Because that's a bold claim. Was there no Being when dinosaurs were walking around among giant ferns? Were there not entities before there were beings capable of conceiving entities? And if Causality didn't exist before we described it and Being didn't exist before we experienced it, then from whence did we arrive on the scene. Because it seems a bit tough to imagine a scenario for us to show up from that doesn't involve entities existing and things happening.

[Anonymous No.11741357]

>>11741316
Well I also see 'beyond' as a definition of meta and physics = nature, so yeah. Do you think people using the term are just referring to anything outside the study of physics? No, it's more specific than that and they are typically making truth claims about the same world physics investigates. If you don't think it's used clumsily, great. I see it abused constantly.

[Anonymous No.11741358]

>>11741324
Sure, mate. His argument, as it appears and with some leaps filled in, goes:
1. Words acquire different meanings with time
2. In philosophy, the same terms can refer to different things over time
3. "Metaphysics" is a philosophical term
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QED: "Metaphysics" no longer refers to the study of first principles, but rather to broad supernatural inquiry.

So the premises are obviously all true, but the conclusion doesn't follow from them. You'd need several more steps and even then the best you're likely to get is a conclusion that the definition has changed for some, which isn't a terribly strong conclusion since parties can simply agree on terms of art before discussion.

[Anonymous No.11741368]

>>11741358
now that I think about it, isn't "metaphysics" in analityc different?

[Anonymous No.11741378]

>>11741331
Conceptualized has evolved over a long time, we possess the most sophisticated capacity for it we know of. At some point though, yes there are living things which don't conceptualize... I don't think a mushroom has any concepts. The concept of causilty didn't exist before the act of conceptualization, the interactions of existing things did (actual relation).

[Anonymous No.11741408]

>>11741378
>The concept of causilty didn't exist before the act of conceptualization, the interactions of existing things did (actual relation)

This is incoherent. Causality is the actual relation being discussed. You might as well have said the concept of things existing didn't exist before the act of conceptualization, but things existed (actual Being). You can't say that what we're talking about is some kind of discursive simulacra of the real thing and then talk about the "real" thing in the same sentence. If this is your understanding then it seems pretty clear that you have no access at all to "reality" as you conceive of it (that which precedes conceptualization) because your understanding is predicated on things like observation and categoization.

[Anonymous No.11741418]

>>11741088
>>11741324
In the case of "supernatural", whether or not the word is or has been used to indicate other concepts in other times and places is irrelevant because what I'm criticizing isn't the use of the word, it's the acceptance by certain people of the concept they associate with the word as valid without realizing the implications of accepting it.

In the case of "metaphysical", what I'm criticizing is (primarily) ignorance of the consequences of using the word to mean "magic" or "spiritual" (that is, lending these concepts an air of respectability by associating them with the older meaning of the word while also devaluing the older meaning).

[Anonymous No.11741422]

>>11741368
No, but a decent number of analytical philosophers consider metaphysics impossible for various interesting reasons that I disagree with.

[Anonymous No.11741430]

>>11741358
Well you assume that parties do agree, and that they share the same collateral knowledge. There is divergence, which is why I think the term 'metaphysics' is clumsy as many employ it as an extant realm as opposed to a useful category.

[Anonymous No.11741439]

>>11741408
>This is incoherent. Causality is the actual relation being discussed.
Causality is an interpretation of the relation, not the relation itself. The relation could also be interpreted as being something other than causality.

[Anonymous No.11741452]

>>11741430
That's less of a problem than you might think, in my experience. Generally if you're engaging in a discussion about the metaphysics of Being, then people are gonna get that you're talking about the weirdness of that concept. Nobody really does blanket metaphysics, it's always the metaphysics of something like spacetime or identity etc. And there's just not that much room for confusion on terms when you're as specific as most metaphysicists are

[Anonymous No.11741474]

>>11741439
>The relation could also be interpreted as being something other than causality

Not really. Causality is the relation between things happening. You're acting like the word and the phenomenon are separated by something real. They're not. If you had a different take on the relation between happenings you would have a different take on causality, because causality is the name we've given to the relationship between happenings.

[Anonymous No.11741479]

>>11741408
There is a concept of causality, and there is that which it actually describes. No, the concept of existence did not exist before an act of conceptualization, yet things still existed. It is usually the case that our concepts do not entirely describe 'that which is', but our concepts are always informed by 'that which is'. No one has access to the entirety of reality, but we all obviously have access to some of it or we wouldn't experience anything.

[Anonymous No.11741541]

>>11741418
So, how do I say x isn't real without saying x. If they refer to the spiritual and magical without actually saying 'god' or 'spell', I should find some exhaustive way of objecting instead of using their terms?

>>11741474
Words rely on collateral knowledge. If knowledge changes, so does the meaning of the word. A much more sophisticated concept of causality is available to us now than was previously. By way of contrast, 'interaction' is a more specific and neutral term to describe the actual relations between things.

[Anonymous No.11741549]

>>11741452
Fair enough, I probably don't get enough exposure to actually erudite circles.

[Anonymous No.11741820]

I just got into this thread where are we on Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.11742010]

>>11740097
Shapiro at least has a sense of humor

[Anonymous No.11742042]

>>11742010
while shilling for Israeli (lobby) domination of US foreign policy and domestic politics

[Anonymous No.11742116]

>>11733436
>The Bible says the sky is blue. Well I went outside last night and it was totally black with sparkling white dots. Early the following morning it was many different colors, yellow, pink, orange. What a load of horse shit.

[Anonymous No.11742123]

Harris is a better scientific thinker, while Peterson tends to be more comfortable in the humanities, dipping into the sciences when he needs to cite something to prove a point.

Harris does have that irritating Dawkins-esque habit of scientistic smugness, like when Dawkins frets his little arms frothing out the mouth about how modern physics disproves religion or whatever he's getting at these days.

Peterson also ventures into the gender/race cluster fuck more than Harris feels comfortable, and you can tell Peterson takes satisfaction in antagonizing all of these lefty ivory tower types.

[Anonymous No.11742169]

>>11741541
>So, how do I say x isn't real without saying x. If they refer to the spiritual and magical without actually saying 'god' or 'spell', I should find some exhaustive way of objecting instead of using their terms?
It's really not very hard. I've been avoiding "free will" for about a year now for similar reasons. All you have to do is use quotation marks and synonyms that lack the unwanted implications.
>"That which you call 'the supernatural' doesn't exist"
>"the spiritual/paranormal doesn't exist"

[Anonymous No.11742228]

>>11742169
Oh yeah, huge difference. Th-thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.11742466]

>>11742123

Harris is scientistic but not a good scientific thinker.

Peterson’s only expertise is clinical psychology, he only ventures over into the humanities to misrepresent most of it.

[Anonymous No.11742474]

>>11741820

At the turning point where it turns into Sam Harris erotic fanfiction

[Anonymous No.11742778]

>>11734687
fella it's all a joke, it's just a matter of whether the comedian is in on it or not

great philosophy text can be the funniest stuff you'll ever read. the problem is as a field it's populated by people who can't think laterally about anything if it meant the difference between getting their fucking arms cut off.

the only ethos born self-serious was fascism, and that was an aesthetic politic. everything else was a drunk comic book from the word go.