83
84

/r/SamHarris reveals our true nature (reddit.com)

rush905 が 投稿

全 179 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]matthewmatics 63ポイント64ポイント  (1子コメント)

/r/philosophy is encapsulates the state of modern philosophy; tired, unoriginal, desperate for attention.

Yes, /r/philosophy is definitely an exemplar of the field today.

[–]mindscentQueen of the universe 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

If there's one thing I think when I see Saul Kripke it's "attention w***e v gtfo"

[–]mrsamsa 77ポイント78ポイント  (53子コメント)

I like how none of them could even entertain the possibility that people could disagree with Harris because he's wrong on a number of points.

It's like when creationists discuss why evolutionists hate god so much, instead of actually trying to deal with the arguments against their position.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 56ポイント57ポイント  (9子コメント)

That's because the way Sam deals with being wrong is saying that you're taking him out of context. So in their minds Harris can never be wrong because when he's wrong you actually just didn't account for the context where he was right.

[–]mrsamsa 55ポイント56ポイント  (7子コメント)

Exactly. What makes it worse is that Harris has collected some of these "misrepresentations" on his "Response to Criticism" page but instead of showing how he doesn't hold the beliefs assigned to him, he simply confirms it.

For example, he quotes multiple people criticising him for advocating a nuclear first strike and he responds by repeating his position about how he thinks it might be necessary in certain conditions. And I'm left thinking, but you're still advocating it. People aren't complaining about your reasons, they're complaining about the fact that you think it's a viable conclusion at all.

I read a good review of his discussion with Maryam Namazie which argued that the reason he claims he's being misrepresented or not understood so much is because he truly believes what he's saying is reasonable, obvious and uncontroversial. So when other reasonable people disagree with him, instead of considering the possibility that he's wrong, he concludes that they must have just misunderstood him.

The Namazie discussion was a prime example of this as she answered his questions multiple times but he kept asking, expecting her to change her answer once she "really" understood his position. The problem was that she understood him fine, she just thought he was wrong.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 34ポイント35ポイント  (6子コメント)

That's also a good explanation for how he and his supporters can't simply disagree with critics (e.g Reza Aslan, Chomsky etc.). The critic must be an intellectually dishonest regressive and awful at whatever they do with no redeeming qualities.

Can you link the review you're referring to?

[–]mrsamsa 27ポイント28ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's the other thing that baffles me. They spend all this time complaining about and criticising "regressive leftists" but they don't seem at all concerned with actual regressives.

Harris has been praising and giving time to people like Douglas Murray and Tommy Robinson. They're the poster children of regressives. It seems like the part Harris disagrees with is the "left" bit, not the "regressive" bit.

I think it was this article I was thinking of.

[–]hebe1983 19ポイント20ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's the other thing that baffles me. They spend all this time complaining about and criticising "regressive leftists" but they don't seem at all concerned with actual regressives.

My understanding is that it's because it's not about ideas, it's about ego. A lot of people in Harris' fans/New Atheism crowd want to see themselves as "intellectuals", because it sounds über-cool. And as the left has had the intellectual high ground since maybe the 60s, well, they think they have to be leftists to be intellectuals. Bad luck for them and their power trip, the left has finally started to try to resolve one of its paradox, that it's difficult to pretend to defend the rights of the oppressed when the only people talking are middle-class white guys. So now, our "intellectuals" are told that to be leftist they have to shut up and listen to minorities... Obviously, they didn't sign for that, they wanted to be intellectuals to be able to speak louder than everyone else!

So basically, what they did is find a bogeyman, namely Islamism, to finger-point as the most oppressive ideology ever. As they oppose Islamism, they can pretend they are progressive leftist, fighting for women's and LGBT rights (which is quite laughable when you think about the elevatorgate) and, argue that leftist with a more nuanced view on Islam, Islamism, Middle-East, etc. is siding with the bad guys and thus, not really a leftist, hence the term "regressive leftist".

TL;DR :they use the term "regressive left" so they can pretend to be the true leftists, and the true intellectuals.

[–]atnormanCurrently 20.8% of people need a bannin' -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

(which is quite laughable when you think about the elevatorgate)

Wait, you mean the shit where literally everyone involved, no matter if they were liberal, conservative, feminist, MRA, etc, came out looking like a clown? I mean, I agree with you on the substance, but using that incident really isn't a good idea.

[–]hebe1983 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why? I agree that basically everyone involved came out as clowns (feminists/liberals/progressive included), as always when this kind of flame war starts. But I can't help noting the irony that these people pretend to defend women against islamists but, when a woman says that she may feel uncomfortable in their community, instead of acknowledging what she says (which would be the very least one should do), they start attacking her.

[–]atnormanCurrently 20.8% of people need a bannin' -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

when a woman says that she may feel uncomfortable in their community

Dumb reason, etc. But no, I agree, they reacted in a horrible manner. But it was a dumb situation all around, using it as representative of any group means it's going to be fair game to use it for the others.

[–]hebe1983 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay. I see what you mean.

[–]DrMikeTysonIs offended by your cavalier attitude towards the word "Cause" 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, if you were to control for the reading level of the material, Sam Harris dismisses criticism in exactly the same manner as Donald Trump.

[–]Joe_HoleI am, therefore I drink 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's only two people in this world: people who think the mozzies are subhuman scum and people who haven't listened to our Lord and Savior Sam Harris yet. /s

[–]Swifty63Ceci n'est pas un Swifty63 36ポイント37ポイント  (3子コメント)

badphilosophy, like all of reddit, is made up mostly of college aged people

Ahhh. The great thing about philosophy is that, however old you get, you're always college aged.

[–]mmoralityLiterallyHeimdalr, mmorality don't real 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

you know the great thing about philosophers? i get older but they stay the same age

[–]DrMikeTysonIs offended by your cavalier attitude towards the word "Cause" 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's why I switched from STEM... so that I could bang co-eds for the rest of my days.

[–]Swifty63Ceci n'est pas un Swifty63 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If, by "bang co-eds," you mean (and what else could you mean?) provoke explosions of enlightenment in the consciousness of the still-impressionable and exuberantly growing youth, then I heartily concur.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 29ポイント30ポイント  (1子コメント)

"/r/badphilosophy is a cesspool of trolling bastards, or whatever philosophy undergraduates are called these days." I thought we agreed we're a sneer club?

[–]completely-ineffableLiterally Saul Kripke, Talented Autodidact 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

I though we agreed we're a sneer club?

You're thinking of /r/SneerClub, though we do do some sneering here too.

[–]Carl_SchmittMagister Templi 8°=3◽ 27ポイント28ポイント  (30子コメント)

I generally like the /r/badwhatever subs. /r/badsociology, /r/badhistory and /r/badeconomics are all hilarious. But /r/badphilosophy is, as far as I can tell, really, inexplicably awful compared to the others.

Mission accomplished. o7

[–]mrsamsa 22ポイント23ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's weird because all of the bad-x subs have the same opinion of Harris. Why were we singled out there?

[–]thecrazing 25ポイント26ポイント  (0子コメント)

Being less bored with our own opinion of him.

[–]DrMikeTysonIs offended by your cavalier attitude towards the word "Cause" 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

We're smaller and all the in-jokes makes it harder to acclimatize without knowing anything about the source material.

[–]mrsamsa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

True but their complaints seem to entirely revolve around the fact that we make fun of Harris. But all the Bad subs do that.

[–]grumpenprole 12ポイント13ポイント  (25子コメント)

on that note, what do you guys think the worst /badacademia sub is? I don't like /r/badreligion; their sidebar is on point but their submissions are not

edit: haha I did mean /r/bad_religion but my mistake is definitely superior

[–]forwardmarsh 6ポイント7ポイント  (12子コメント)

As someone with a background in the field and who has posted there, /r/badliterarystudies is not good. Not at all. There's like one post in a fortnight and it's usually complaining about what is almost certainly a teenager in a default who doesn't think metaphor is real. Makes me kinda sad.

[–]gangstacompgod 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

smh who doesn't just browse /r/badliterature instead

[–]mmnnbbmnb 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

LiterallyAnscombe dissed Tristram Shandy, and the sub upvoted it. Some crimes are not meant to be forgiven

[–]drunkentuneODIN THE DREAD 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

...

There will be hell to pay. Cry havoc and set loose the hogs of war from the mud pit!

[–]mmnnbbmnb 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

, /u/LiterallyAnscombe ---a challenge,---a plague in house ensconced, thereon-, as would the opinion generally held, be--- of the consequence of challenges. Oh forsaken! Alas, but I must call in my hogs--as it were, and outslip for thee my wrath one alone! I will - I will not have it, sir! Do you accept it? Does it quell your humour? Or your humours indeed, Highness,--- No, I will not have it, as my father's oath would have it -- nae, thy challenge, answer it or stricken be!. So cried my father in his oaths. and so and so and so on

[–]drunkentuneODIN THE DREAD 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm so hot and bothered by Laurence Sterne's use of dash-marks.

(I'm also half-braindead after grading undergraduate papers, I think I lost the write ability word choose small hurt me must rest now

[–]mmnnbbmnb 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

My mind is magma from hordes of Ben B. Stillerites

I wake up screaming in the hall

I didn't mean to wake up at all

I run and lock the bathroom door

Turn on the taps and out they pour

Through all the villages and towns

A thousand sandy-coloured clowns

I try and escape down private drives

And then I reach the Readers’ Wives

Quick question: what do you think does the B. stand for in Ben B. Stiller?

... As a drunken lump I fall into a state of blissful unconsciousness, but the moment is fleeting, and I awake once more in despair, and in my final agonies believe myself lost.

ed. in my darkest hours I dig out my dog-eared Penguin Classics copy, with a bottle of cheap Napoleon Brandy from the Tesco down the road, and sink into an abyssal bliss far beneath these choppy Hobbesian seas soon forgotten: an exquisite and ecstatic abuse of punctuation

[–]forwardmarsh 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Omg I'm in

[–]JoyBus147can I get you some fucking fruit juice? 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Which is insane, you'd think that there would be so much fodder for that sub on this horrible website.

[–]atnormanCurrently 20.8% of people need a bannin' 4ポイント5ポイント  (9子コメント)

Bad econ is quite possibly the most biased, but they admit they're super freshwater, so I wouldn't necessarily call them a bad sub for it.

[–]mmnnbbmnb 5ポイント6ポイント  (6子コメント)

Nah, I really hate it over there. Admitting bias isn't the same as dealing with it and their exegesis of even relatively uncontroversial alternative viewpoints is consistently dreadful. It's like Full Communism in reverse.

[–]atnormanCurrently 20.8% of people need a bannin' 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Hey, /u/integralds, /u/commentsrus - he just said your mom's so robotic and loveless that Homo Economicus is a good model to describe her, how do you respond?

[–]mmnnbbmnb 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oi /u/wumbotarian !

Road to Serfdom's a big pile of shit!

[–]wumbotarian3 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Wumbo got banned from posting here, I forget why. I honestly don't care. As you all say, this isn't a place for learns so I'm not interested anyway.

[–]Integralds 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm confused by the characterization of /be as freshwater. Seems pretty saltwater to me. Woodford gets more love than Prescott, for example. And there's no shortage of posts coming from the (new) Keynesian viewpoint.

[–]atnormanCurrently 20.8% of people need a bannin' 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really? Well, my bad then. It's so out of my field it isn't even funny. Seems FW to me, but that's probably just me.

[–]DrMikeTysonIs offended by your cavalier attitude towards the word "Cause" 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly, the bias makes it hard to read most of the time. It's hard to really have a good time when the people you're trying to joke around with are believers in various monitory policy heresies. A fresh-water bias is fine, it's a good portion of the North American profession, but I think the climate attracts weirdos who blend in. Then again, I don't spend too much time there, so maybe I'm not exactly right about this opinion.

I think /r/badhistory has the same problem with weirdo heretics blending-in, but that's mostly a population thing probably.

[–]wumbotarian3 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

my main, /u/wumbotarian was banned from here. Oh well.

Bad econ is quite possibly the most biased

In what way? You mention freshwater, which is just macro. The majority of our people are non-macro people (just that macro gets talked about more, especially during the political season).

but they admit they're super freshwater, so I wouldn't necessarily call them a bad sub for it.

Well, no one is outright freshwater. Everyone is actually saltwater - either a run-of-the-mill New Keynesian or a market monetarist (which fits nicely into NK models). We just have a lot of admiration for freshwater guys like Lucas or Friedman (though saltwater/Keynesian stuff is like 2.5/3 monetarist).

[–]Wire_My_Timbers 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't stand the bad religion sub. They tend to flame a lot and most of the users are just angry that not everyone is a glorious theist

[–]mgexiledCosmicAtheism 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Any Bad Religion song is smarter than anything you have to say.

[–]wokeupabugaccidentally in love with zoe lister-jones 44ポイント45ポイント  (12子コメント)

haha @ omglol, he said he couldn't be bothered because he was too wealthy!! (really?) well, no, but... he said something, don't fret the details

[–]mrsamsa 60ポイント61ポイント  (10子コメント)

I heard that after the college professor said he was too wealthy/ that his time was too valuable/ that he secretly just hated Sam Harris, an eagle flew into the room and cried a single Muslim tear.

Then Harris jumped up from the audience and launched a nuclear first strike because if there's a 1% chance that eagles could be Muslim terrorists, he has to take it as an absolute certainty.

Then all the philosophers applauded because they realised their field was simply contributing to the overall boredom in the universe. Albert Einstein was there too but he's not as smart as Harris because he was too politically correct.

[–]Nagginsbaby dont hurt me 26ポイント27ポイント  (9子コメント)

Albert Einstein was there too but he's not as smart as Harris because he was too politically correct

Not to mention a filthy socialist

[–]mrsamsa 36ポイント37ポイント  (8子コメント)

We use the term "regressive leftist" now. It's a scarier sounding boogeyman.

[–]JoyBus147can I get you some fucking fruit juice? 6ポイント7ポイント  (7子コメント)

It's a useful term, because it allows non-leftists to pretend to be leftists and riding the coattails of the left's success while also denying the actual left's leftness. I think this might be the first time in history that the left has been appropriated by the right, it's very exciting.

[–]wokeupabugaccidentally in love with zoe lister-jones 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

it allows non-leftists to pretend to be leftists

We use the term "regressive leftist" now.

When complaining about how the left is the great existential threat destroying America became a common Harrisite trope, my initial reaction was, "Ok, surely now people aren't going to continue to feign this stuff is left wing." Humanity continues to surprise.

[–]mrsamsa [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

It's really nuts. I can't figure out why they think they're left.

[–]wokeupabugaccidentally in love with zoe lister-jones [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It is a bit weird, when Harris makes a name for himself defending the most infamously divisive and hated policy associated with the American right for the past couple decades, and then continues to take hard-right positions on a variety of related political or social issues... But when the left is then made into the scapegoat for all that is wrong in the west; come on, people!

I've occasionally wondered if the atheism shtick is deliberate and merely a vehicle for the political message, under the thinking that Americans have an infinite appetite for the religious, and will consume the political message, even if it's emphatically at odds with how they otherwise think of themselves politically, so long as it's been packaged in the garnish of flattering their religious opinions.

[–]mrsamsa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That definitely makes sense. It's also pretty telling that the people he has "difficulties" interviewing because of conflicting viewpoints are the leftists, whereas when he has right wingers on, like Haidt or Murray (or when he talks about Tommy Robinson), suddenly there's no tension and they get on like old friends.

I'm not sure if you've listened to it but the Maryam Namazie interview was brilliant, she really pulled his pants down and he didn't even realise. She grilled him on the fact that like how religious moderates give cover to fundamentalists (in Harris' view), that he's giving cover to far right extremists - and he just couldn't accept the logic of his own argument. He denied that he had responsibility for how others used his words, and argued atheists needed to side with each other regardless of whether they're providing support for far right proponents, and tried to write it all off as "friendly fire". She wasn't having it though, and argued that she didn't agree that the enemy of her enemy was her friend, and Harris did his usual: "You must be misunderstanding me if you're disagreeing, so I'll try explaining my position in the exact same way multiple times and try to force you to agree that I'm not promoting bigotry".

[–]MichaelPenn [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

They don't believe in God.

Conservatives believe in God.

Therefore, they are leftists.

[–]mrsamsa [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's actually a clever way of understanding it, I've never thought of it that way. It is an interesting thing lately where clearly right-wing people are too afraid to identify as right, so they create a new kind of "left" that only they belong to and all other leftists are the 'wrong' kind of left.

Reminds me of Christina Hoff Sommers' new labels for "feminism", where she's so desperate to avoid being called an anti-feminist that she had to create an entirely new category just for herself which describes a kind of feminism that rejects all feminist beliefs.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't forget he's too important to be bothered with it.

[–]completely-ineffableLiterally Saul Kripke, Talented Autodidact 40ポイント41ポイント  (63子コメント)

They see him as a bad actor, as Sam would say. Because the people there have a certain respect for academic philosophy, they really don't like Harris because his philosophical works, or at least his ideas on moral philosophy, intentionally make an end-around past the vanguard and traditional issues of moral philosophy.

I really like this line of thought, and not just because it seems to not know what a vanguard is. It's so widely applicable!

They see Ken Ham as a bad actor. Because the people there have a certain respect for academic biology, they really don't like Ham because his scientific works, or at least his ideas on evolution, intentionally make an end-around past the vanguard and traditional issues of biology.

Anyway, the real reason I dislike Harris is that he's racist.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 40ポイント41ポイント  (0子コメント)

I dislike Harris because he leads people to believe in bigoted views while simultaneously making them believe those views are the only way to interpret the facts if you're intelligent.

[–]mrsamsa 22ポイント23ポイント  (51子コメント)

Where did this idea that people are upset that he's "slighted philosophy" come from anyway? They make it sound like people disagree with him because he hurt their feelings or bruised their egos by not "paying respect" to the field.

I remember asking one of them a while ago if they could link to someone making that argument and I think they just stopped responding.

[–]ShitgensteinMorality don't real but ought learns. 38ポイント39ポイント  (48子コメント)

When people criticize Harris for not engaging with the existing literature in moral philosophy, they interpret that as "not paying his dues" and that academic philosophy resents his rogue genius or whatever.

[–]mmnnbbmnb 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

No it's worse than that. I believe if Harris did engage with moral philosophy they'd be on his side too, no matter how wrong he was: so long as he continued to make shitty claims with or against the grain they'd be there. It's exclusively to do with his rhetoric, and never to do with his results so long as they sit in the broadly "liberal" sphere. I think they get off on his hand-waving, motte and bailey (eugh that phrase), uber-polite (uber-rational) effacement more than anything else. They like cold hard facts: No free will, meditation/No God, RESULTS.

[–]mrsamsa 9ポイント10ポイント  (46子コメント)

I figured that's where it was coming from, I was just curious as to whether there was a reason that actually supported their interpretation. Not surprised that there isn't.

[–]deadlikenessstark, raving moral feelist 21ポイント22ポイント  (45子コメント)

It's completely senseless. If they only can be made to understand that despite Harris claiming to make an "end around" or whatever the fuck, his moral landscape was completely unoriginal and vague.

Don't know if anyone remembers, but Letterman had a sketch on his show called "Is this Anything?" It featured a bizarre act or a weird object placed on stage and he and Paul would have to decide if it was any thing at all. That's the moral landscape.

EDIT: holy shit look at letterman's beard now !

[–]mrsamsa 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah that's what frustrating about discussions with his fans (and I guess Harris himself) who don't really understand the subject matter, as they are so clueless that they don't realise how wrong they are. And because of Harris' rhetoric, once you start trying to explain basic ethical principles to them so that they can understand where Harris has gone wrong, you get the whole, "Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not here to talk philosophy. Harris makes philosophy redundant so we don't need to discuss that".

Harris even literally has that argument in The Moral Landscape, where in a brief moment of self awareness he realises that there might be objections to the broad ethical view he's putting forward, but instead of dealing with them and addressing them, he simply links people to the SEP and says he's doing science not philosophy so it's not relevant to his work!

If Harris could show how science can determine human values then that'd be amazing! Instead we get this shitty book where he talks about "science" all the time but hides in his footnote that by "science" he doesn't actually mean science, but instead just means anything rational or good. So instead of saying "science can determine human values", it becomes: "Philosophy can determine human values and the scientific method can help inform us on certain issues".

Which is basically how ethics has always been done, but unlike Harris other philosophers defended the position more rigorously and laid out a more coherent framework.

[–]deadlikenessstark, raving moral feelist 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Exactly. And yeah, his subtitle was a lie, (didn't he write a book about lying...) it didn't prove that science can determine human values at all.

His lack of defense of his views was galling. It seemed like he was content to just prattle on, high-in-a dorm-room-style, about some broke-ass version of utilitarianism. (I bet he had a blast writing it, though.)

Don't ask me about his metaethical position. Moral rationalist? Maybe.

[–]mrsamsa 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

EDIT: holy shit look at letterman's beard now !

He went full Dennett.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gotta disagree with you that's an obvious thinning kropotkin if you ask any expert.

[–]mrsamsa 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Without empirical evidence I dismiss your claim.

[–]Nagginsbaby dont hurt me 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not quite "slighting" it, but I think writing a book called The Moral Landscape when you are either to stupid or lazy to have even a sophomoric understanding of basic meta/normative ethics does kind of diminish the field.

[–]mrsamsa 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Absolutely, but usually I see the argument against the book being that the arguments contained within it are bad and demonstrably wrong, rather than the arguments being fine and people just being upset that he didn't properly cite philosophical work (which seems to be how the criticism is often presented).

[–]deathpigeonx#FeelTheStirn, Against Everything 2016 37ポイント38ポイント  (6子コメント)

I dislike him because he's an imperialist and capitalist.

[–]thekilns -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh come now, my use of "vanguard" wasn't that much of a stretch. I mean to say that Harris has intentionally refused to engage with the classic cats in philosophy(Mill, Bentham, Parfit, Rawls, etc.) who have already dealt in greater depth with the issues he wrote about in The Moral Landscape.

[–]LaoTzusGymShoes 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you don't know what it means, got it.

[–]thekilns 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really. You're gonna be like that. You guys just get it in your heads that I'm a Harris sympathizer and all charity has to go out the window. Vanguard, as in "the forefront of an action or movement". i.e. the leading cats in moral philosophy, not necessarily in terms of time, but in terms of influence in ideas.

[–]butistillwork 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

Never looked at that sub before.

regressive left

Ah ok, so it's a shithole. I'm shocked.

[–]kasjflkajsdlkfjpro grammar 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why do so many of them expect this subreddit to be filled with intellectual discussion?

Somehow I doubt drunkentune said that he was "too wealthy and important."

[–]deadlikenessstark, raving moral feelist 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

Harris has slighted academic philosophy in the past

Jesus. Enough already.

He wrote an awful book. He had a good opportunity to write something a lot of people would read and he wrote an awful book. He failed. He bombed. He ate it. He didn't slight shit.

[–]memographer110 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ok, so here's the thing I found most annoying about the few minutes of the "best podcast ever" I could stand listening to: Ben Stiller complains again and again that the rhetoric of his critics is uncharitable. Like, fuck, excuse me? Says the guy who says that any defenders of Islam are aiding and abetting Al Qaeda? Says the guy who claims that any defenders of free will are closet Sadists that enjoy inflicting suffering on people who just happen to have non-normative brain states? I'll stop calling Harris a fascist and an imperialist the day he takes his critics seriously.

[–]Change_you_can_xeroxHung Hegelian 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's the rub. I heard one podcast he did where he basically had a breakdown and went on a half-hour rant about how people like Glenn Greenwald where just unredeemable assholes, dishonest, incapable of engaging in rational conversation, etc. and then he has the temerity to say that people are being uncharitable to his viewpoints. Virtually every critique I've read of Sam Harris has been related to a) words he's written or b) words he's said. There's been very little that relates to his character (most people say he's sincere), but Harris can't seem to countenance that people would take issue with what he says being wrong, so if they do so they must be behaving dishonestly.

Then there's the language he uses when talking about other people's work (which it's obvious he doesn't ever read), so he's called Scott Atran "preening and delusional", Chomsky "dangerously deluded", Jeremy Corbyn is a "delusional liberal" (lol), Reza Aslan is "dishonest", the list goes on. I remember in one talk discussing The Moral Landscape he claimed to have spoken to someone from the Obama Administration who, when he said that pouring acid into schoolgirls' faces was morally wrong, said "well that's just your opinion". I would put good money on that person never having said those words (as he's similarly misrepresented others), but Sam Harris is the one who is represented uncharitably? Riiiiiight.

[–]terrapin0512 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Do you remember which one it was? I want to hate-listen.

[–]DrMikeTysonIs offended by your cavalier attitude towards the word "Cause" 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, does he not understand how fucking academic (and I am using the term very loosely here) book reviews work? The reviewer is supposed to extrapolate and free-wheel away from the direct text to make a greater point, it can get harsh. The point is the examine the implicature as well as the text. It's like Sam Harris has never read a fucking academic journal in his entire life.

[–]mmnnbbmnb 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm too drunk to be less frustrated and angry than I am now, but most of all I'm just so disappointed.

[–]slickwom-botI'M A BOT BEEP BOOP 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I AM SLICK WOM-BOT. ANTI-ARISTOTELIAN MODE ACTIVATED.

http://web.archive.org/web/20160316010138/https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/4aji6k/is_rbadphilosophy_a_parody_subreddit_its_like_we/