Why Sam Harris is always wrong / with Cole Nasrallah

[@KaneB]

A clarification: I think I was too emphatic in my description of the status of the is-ought gap. It's not *totally* uncontroversial. There are serious philosophers who have attempted to bridge the is-ought gap. However: (1) their arguments are much more sophisticated than Harris's; and (2) most of these arguments don't actually get you to a general moral theory (e.g. Searle's argument, if successful, only generates oughts through certain social institutions like promising). It's totally uncontroversial that the kind of argument Harris tries to make is hopeless as a response to the is-ought gap - and moral realists don't need such arguments anyway.

[@badsocks756]

John Searle's attempt is embarassingly bad.

[@badsocks756]

@@Mandibil yeah, it's basically just a linguistic slight of hand.

[@solomonherskowitz]

Harris is a brilliant neuroscientist his book waking up is very sophisticated but he's no philosopher

[@alst4817]

@@solomonherskowitz but that’s exactly the point he is trying to make. Just because you have cut down a lot of trees, doesn’t mean your contributions are valuable. Do I have to read all the extant literature on the Norse god Wodin and his pantheon to dismiss them as not really existing? Harris is claiming that the is ought problem is relevant to ethics in the same way as phrenology is relevant to neuroscience.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

​@@badsocks756 semantics played a lot of roles for making an argument

[@rationalityrules]

Great video :) Nasrallah's motorcycle syllogism does a great job of illustrating the issue, as it's very obvious that it's missing a premise. And the Galileo example of a reductio is awesome! Will be using that in the future ;) Thanks!

[@jesselee34]

To be honest I'm a little bit surprised that you found this criticism of the Harris's work compelling, although the Galileo example was indeed awesome.

[@JeffNippard]

1:00 “they don’t want to do the hard work of actually doing and studying philosophy...” Sam did do a B.A. in philosophy though. I don’t think I agree with him re: is/ought gap, but I do think he’s honestly engaged with the philosophical literature much more than many of his new atheist contemporaries and more than his critics would lead on.

[@chasekanipe]

Metaethics is not normally covered in any depth during undergrad - it's likely he took a class on normative ethics and classes on applied ethics, but it unlikely that he got more than a shallow overview of metaethics

[@alfonso201]

Have you read the moral landscape? It's literally garbage and he ignores anything that btfo his nonsense i think his BA waa a waste if money if he doesn't have a decent understanding of basic moral philosophy

[@prenuptials5925]

Interestingly enough he was a student of Rorty as well. He said he took all of his classes he could and spent quite a bit of time arguing with him, but ultimately was influenced by him in some antagonistic way

[@KaneB]

This isn't really saying much in his defense, though. If anything, it only makes his shoddy scholarship more deplorable: given his background, he should know how bad this stuff is so he no longer has the excuse of ignorance.

[@ChrisbyOfficial]

Read harder than last time

[@prenuptials5925]

That Galileo thought experiment makes me smile every time, just so beautifully elegant!

[@Milankoful]

Finally someone speaks up about Harris and his mediocre thinking.. "it's not exactly bad philosophy, it's barely even philosophy at all" I'm gonna steal that one... Thank you!

[@Milankoful]

@@Barklord Yeah, I know... But nice to hear it from someone credible

[@evezeta5182]

it feels like Pauli telling pseudoscientists that their ideas aren't even wrong

[@williamjames9466]

I learnt so much about philosophy, its power and value - not boring , but fascinating and enjoyable. Your explanations were clear and well argued, unlike the Sam Harris twitter post, which you analysed. Thank you

[@josvanderspek1403]

The entire first half (up to about 26:00) of the video could be summarised as 'Harris accepts the premisse "the negation of well-being ought not be pursued"'' or something like that, and hence leaves it out of the syllogism. Now this comes with its own problems, obviously, as it is not always clear if something results in (the negation of) well-being ("going to school sucks, but it's good for you"). So Harris' hypothesis is, that _all these issues can be solved_, since someone's well-being as a result of X and as a result of Y are facts (although we would have to run the Universe twice changing only X to Y and leave all parameters unchanged, which is, at best, impractical). i.e., X raises/decreases one's well-being more than Y does. This is surely a defensible claim, albeit an unproven one. It's certainly defensible enough on which to construct an entire theory (people have done so on far 'sillier' claims (i.e. I have the ear of the Creator of the Universe ^^)). The fact that it, _as such_ (i.e. by omitting the premise) doesn't quite fit the standard definition of syllogisms, is good to note, but also, in my humble opinion, besides the point and not good enough to base an entire hour-long video titled "Why Sam Harris is always wrong" on. On to half two, perhaps it will make me change my mind. ;)

[@josvanderspek1403]

Ok, so apart from a few tantrums (which were a bit of a red flag) the second part does come more to the point. I will at least grant you one point: he assusmes (some version of) utilitarianism (and, hence, some notion of measurability of well-being). I always wondered why he never talked about that, and perhaps it _is_ because many versions of utilitarianism have already been succesfully attacked. He might defend this as: "yet, we all realise at a deep level, that a happy society under an unhappy ruler is better than an unhappy society under a happy dictator" and extensions of this notion, but that is pure speculation on my part. I'm curious, perhaps I'll tweet him about it ;)

[@josvanderspek1403]

Ok, there's more to unpack in the last part. First of all, if you are hung up on formalism, which you clearly are, considering the first half hour, you should have noted that _presented in the way it is,_ not only is P5 not contradictory to P1, P1 ∧ P5 is in fact a tautology (since the antecedent of P5 is assumed to be false, the implication that is P5 is immediately true). Now you put P5a in his mouth, weakening the formal structure by hand. This is, of course, also beside the point. I'll give you that the first sentence of P1 very much looks like a setup for a proof by contradiction, which is weird. But in the end, it's a _premise,_ not a truth claim (although he obviously seeks to assume it). On the other hand, the burden of proof always lies with the existence claim, so from that perspective it's perfectly valid not to assume more than actual facts (not sure how 'possible facts' differ from actual ones). Of course then P5 goes on to do a lot of heavy lifting again, which he realises, hence the addendum about the stove. This you can attack, but that would be addressing his actual point, so let's not do that. Second, he never claimed that this idea tells us _what to do in any given circumstance._ He simply claims an answer _exists_ (in some abstract possibility spaces): that were we to run the Universe again, changing but one parameter, we could compare the two resulting universes and 'measure' which one will have turned out to be the preferable one (again, relying on a version of utilitarianism). He fully agrees that this is, in practice, quite unknowable. So I could in fact point out an additional omitted assumption: knowing more about the world (through science), will result in choices that better approximate maximised well-being. This is generally quite obviously true, but counterexamples can easily be found. In conclusion, I'm not disappointed because this turned out to be all about logical structure, nor am I disappointed that you disagree with his main point, but I am disappointed that you disagree with his main point _because_ of the lack of logical structure. In all colloquial conversations we rely on the other party 'filling in the gaps', so to speak. There were so many opportunities to steel-man his position, which you have failed to do. So I remain quite unconvinced by this whole report. Next time: if you want to teach logical structure, you could pick nearly any piece of text and whether or not you agree with the final notion is a thing separate from how it is written down. If you want to convince people his views are false, address his real point and steel-man, don't straw-man.

[@JulioNicoletti]

Hey guys, Ive grown up on a lot of Harris/Alex O Conner/Matt dilahunty and it sounds like this is maybe the equivalent of people watching Bob Ross tutorials to learn how to be a better artist. How can I get a better understanding of good reasoning without going to school? How can I know what good philosphy is? Im almost 30 and work full time, so I'm wondering if you'd have any recommended books/audiobooks/podcasts. Bonus question: How can I know what is a good philosophy book and what if you recommend one and someone tells me in a few years "oh, that book is a load of garbage, the REAL philosphy is over here". Sometimes I feel overwhelmed with all the different ideas that exist and I worry Im getting into a "who knows?" mindset on every topic. Hope my ramblings make sense lol. Thanks! Btw your audio clips and snaps a lot, just thought Id let you know.

[@cloudoftime]

Harris got his BA in Philosophy from Stanford University. So Cole is mistaken at 00:35:45.

[@Liliquan]

"He kinda sucks at the Philosophy stuff" is the nicest thing one could ever say about Harris. It would be awesome if you could do a vid about Pinker. If one wonders why, well he wrote a recommendation of "The Moral Landscape" which made it to the front cover. In it he said "......Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality. It is a tremendously appealing vision and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore.". By the way, an excellent vid critiquing "The Moral Landscape" is kzbin.info/www/bejne/ranEnaWthbOehKs

[@ozarkrenew1019]

It seems both men are disinformation agents

[@jesselee34]

I'm 90% certain you haven't read any of Sam's work, and are forming an opinion about him based entirely on what others have said. Am I right?

[@Liliquan]

@@jesselee34 I’m 100% certain that you have know idea what you are talking about. I’ve read three of his books and listened to many hours of his talks. It seems you can’t handle someone criticizing your idol.

[@jesselee34]

@@Liliquan How can you be *100%* certain that I have *0* idea what I'm talking about, if I conceded a 10% chance of being wrong? Also Sam Harris is not my idol.

[@jesselee34]

@M C Sam Harris is not an idiot. He's disliked by philosophers because he publicly denigrates philosophy as a discipline. You can think what ever you want about him, but _Sam Harris is an idiot_ is objectively false.

[@Ratherniche]

I'm about 15 minutes in, I really enjoy these discussions and hearing the trades between you to make better arguments. Thanks to you both.

[@philp521]

Ever since Dennett started associating with Harris, I’ve had to add disclaimers so people don’t think I’m a New Atheist Harris-enjoyer when I recommend Real Patterns or Quining Qualia or what have you... How someone could go from studying under Quine and Ryle to hanging out with Harris is a mystery to me.

[@philp521]

Oh my god... The attempt at the reductio... Did he think the phrase “let’s assume” made it sound “more logic-y” as he was writing that or something?

[@prenuptials5925]

I don't think they really hang out, and they actually have had a pretty bitter debate on free will/determinism

[@philp521]

@@prenuptials5925 Right, but they seem to have been on good terms prior to that and since then. In fact, I think I read that Harris had sent Dennett Free Will to look over before its publication, but Dennett said he “didn’t have time.” (Honestly, I’d say the same if I were him...) and then, after all the dispute, they made up on some podcast debate that I watched out of morbid curiosity.

[@quentinsutton2097]

@M C He never seemed that hot.

[@jesselee34]

@@philp521 You, and the people in this video have utterly failed to understand anything that Harris has said. Did you even try?

[@goodquestion7915]

About the quote from Sam Harris' book you didn't understand. The part that says "sciences of mind" refers to Neurology.

[@toddhensley880]

I did not read “sucks” = bad. I read it “sucks” = causes pain, harm, or suffering.

[@andrew_nayes]

Listening to Harris' confusion in this clip: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYe9oWekjLKjnqc where he is presenting his twitter-argument to Sean Carroll, it feels like he think that the is-ought problem is a semantic problem. It's a rather comedic clip. At the end he sighs: "This is one of these conversations where all you can appeal to are your intuitions about meaning of words like 'should'..."

[@ColeNasrallah]

This was hilarious. Thank you for sharing!

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

The amount of conceit that goes with thinking you've solved on of the greatest problems in philosophy by using semantic juggling and "intuitions" is astounding to me.

[@ColeNasrallah]

@@hansfrankfurter2903 Ok, but _have you put your hand on a hot stove?!_ ;)

[@kennethconnally4356]

Harris seems to think he doesn't need to engage with metaethics because he has a knock-down argument that solves the issue in favor of consequentialism. I've seen him break out this argument in several places; it takes roughly the following form: Imagine every sentient being suffering the worst possible misery forever. Now everyone will admit that this situation is "bad." Therefore, we have an objective standard of ultimate badness, and the only question is how to move as far as possible in the opposite direction. The problem I see with this is that, while Sam does seem to have found one statement that everyone (utilitarians, divine command people, relativists, etc.) will agree with (not desiring eternal misery for all beings, including themselves), this isn't evidence that their differences of opinion on metaethics are unimportant, much less that they are all just confused consequentialists. As soon as we take even a single step away from this toy example, their competing metaethical stances will again produce contradictory judgments. For instance, lift one non-realist who happens to also be a sadist out of misery into happiness, and he now sees nothing wrong with the situation. Meanwhile plenty of non-consequentialists will now see the situation as *worse* than when everyone was miserable since it's become more unjust.

[@nickmorris2250]

I've been wondering if the 'is ought' gap also applies to religious morality. Religious people seem to imply that demand command theory gets around it but I don't see that it does. You mentioned that 'ought' needs to be 'in the premises' but the way I've understood it is that there's a difference between saying 'ought' and a kind of 'binding ought.' For example: P1: Nick says you ought to give him (Nick) all your money C: Therefore you ought to give him (Nick) all your money The premise does include the word 'ought' but its just someone saying 'ought' and not an ought that we should think is binding on us. To fix it, you would need to add a second premise: P2: You ought to do what Nick says So, if that's right, then I feel like religious people can't avoid the same problem with divine command theory. e.g. P1: God says you ought not steal C: Therefore, you ought not steal Don't they have to add that second premise again? (P2: You ought to do what God says)

[@transcendentphilosophy]

The criticism of Sam's twitter premise 1 says that Sam is bringing up a assumption of no oughts in the universe, but then later he just gives up this assumption as the argument develops. I agree that Sam isn't clear enough here, but I believe I know a better way of getting his point across. I think Sam is implicitly distinguishing between "cosmic oughts" and "subjective oughts". Sam's first premise grants that there is no God writing "oughts" into the structure of the universe. But then Sam appeals to the subjective suckiness of some experiences, and derives his subjective oughts from that point. And of course, Sam Harris views subjective oughts as objective oughts because of neurosciences ability to objectively measure subjective experience in the brain.

[@mrpickle6290]

This is a similar thought I was having. I think perhaps Kane and Cole are simply misunderstanding Harris' conclusion by thinking he intends to prove that moral facts exist, which he isn't (if he is he is doing a very poor job). He has obviously shot himself in the foot by not studying the literature enough to understand how the "is-ought gap" actually works etc. Though, bad communication aside, I think his overall argument is as follows. P1. The vast majority of people have the same feelings about the world (i.e., the feeling to maximize wellbeing, avoid pain etc.), P2. The moral facts are simply facts about how people can go about acting on these feelings successfully P3. What prevents people accessing the moral facts is not having the correct empirical facts, P4. Science is a way to gather the correct empirical facts, P5. If people have the same feelings about the world, they should act on these feelings successfully C1. People should use science to access the moral facts The most contentious premise would obviously be P1., however, if P1. were true, the argument would seem to bridge the divide between a fair few group that are at each other's throats (think American politics), and that seems to be Harris' goal. P5. Also seems to be the premise that Harris' would need to fully justify in a philosophy paper, however, since he isn't a philosopher, he only needs to appeal to his audiences' intuitions.

[@mohammadsultan935]

I think the point Harris was trying to make is that it isn't that implausible to accept the implicit P2 - we ought to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Just out of curiosity, could someone not compare this belief to other basic beliefs that we accept but can't find justification for in other premises such as the laws of logic, or the law of uniformity of nature. If we can accept these truths axiomatically, why can't we do the same for the P2 intuition? It seems to be just as strongly intuitive and universal.

[@AlbertoAntonio6]

Love these convos!

[@transcendentphilosophy]

I am not sure if Sam addresses the "experience machine" in his book, but I think I know how he would view it. Basically, if people's brains have an inclination to voluntarily reject an "experience machine" that would provide them with unlimited virtual happiness, the fact that people's brains reject this option is evidence that the wellbeing inside their brain includes a value that is contrary to the "experience machine". For example, perhaps there is a "value reality" cortex in their brain that abhors false happiness. Their wellbeing would be harmed by false happiness. Hence, in order to maximize the wellbeing of their brain, they must avoid false happiness.

[@transcendentphilosophy]

From "The Moral Landscape" - "A miniature version of this dilemma is surely on the horizon: increasingly, we will need to consider the ethics of using medications to mitigate mental suffering. For instance, would it be good for a person to take a drug that made her indifferent to the death of her child? Surely not while she still had responsibilities as a parent. But what if a mother lost her only child and was thereafter inconsolable? How much better than inconsolable should her doctor make her feel? How much better should she want to feel? Would any of us want to feel perfectly happy in this circumstance? Given a choice-and this choice, in some form, is surely coming-I think that most of us will want our mental states to be coupled, however loosely, to the reality of our lives. How else could our bonds with one another be maintained? How, for instance, can we love our children and yet be totally indifferent to their suffering and death? I suspect we cannot. But what will we do once our pharmacies begin stocking a genuine antidote to grief?"

[@philosophyofreligion]

I think Harris is taking premise 1 as a "working hypothesis" and seeing where it leads. Once it succeeds in giving a satisfying explanation then that's a reason to take it as true tentatively.

[@ColeNasrallah]

It unambiguously leads to contradiction. I know we explained this. I did jazz hands about this. Lol.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

Absolutely. Sam Harris's first premise (if it is his own premise) about "no oughts existing in the universe" (or however it's worded) is surely a reference to what he takes *other people's* position to be. So Harris doesn't really contradict himself (further down in the argument) when he argues that there are indeed "oughts" in the universe (as Cole Nasrallah states it)... By the way, is the numbering and presentation of "Harris's argument" (as written by Kane B in the video) the same as how Harris *himself* expressed his position? Did Harris offer an argument in this supposedly logical form - complete with numberings? Or is this a case of Kane B attempting to (as it were) embarrass Harris by putting his position in its seemingly illogical logical form?

[@philosophyofreligion]

@@paulaustinmurphy Yeah I don't think he would put a rigorous argument in tweet.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

I don't believe that Bertrand Russell would have put a rigorous argument in a tweet. Indeed there are times and places for clearly-mapped-out arguments and they don't need to occur all the time... For example, I don't believe that the categorical statement "Sam Harris is always wrong" is part of an argument as such. It may be the result of arguments and it may also be poetic/rhetorical. But Harris's tweets and popular expressions may be the result of arguments expressed or thought about elsewhere and therefore they may also be partly poetic/rhetorical. It's easy to select passages for straw-target purposes.

[@ColeNasrallah]

@@paulaustinmurphy You ask: _Did Harris offer an argument in this supposedly logical form - complete with numberings?_ The argument we use is, word for word, from Harris. It is numbered in its original form. A simple google search will reveal this.

[@RobertHildebrandt]

I am sceptical about the Galileo example. Let's say you are underwater. You have two objects less dense than water with different buoyancies which will rise with different velocities. You can connect them with a string and the connected thingy will rise with a velocity somewhere between the velocities of the separate objects (I guess). Either there's something I've missed about Galileos argument or he got lucky to get to the correct conclusion using the wrong mental model.

[@prenuptials5925]

you're missing that the thought experiment isn't about gravitation in water lmao

[@RobertHildebrandt]

@@prenuptials5925 32:20

[@cauanmarques7118]

I think the case here is that the drag force depends mostly, if we are to neglect dissipative forces as Galileo did with the air resistance, on density, which is determined by a combination of mass (weight, in terms of force) and volume. By connecting those object we increase the total mass, but also increase the volume; so that the case is not as simple as the one considered by Galileo, which relevant factor was solely mass. If we were only to say that lighter objects raise faster, that would be mistaken, since a football float, while a lesser quantity of steel sinks. I hope that makes sense and clarifies your doubt.

[@cauanmarques7118]

Ps: however, we cannot necessarily deduce from Galileo's argument that two objects fall at the same time, since there could be a number of other variables determining that as happens in the case of submerged objects, or in the very case of falling object with air resistance. Therefore, there's also a matter of simplicity or further empirical evidence to pick his theory instead.

[@StatelessLiberty]

Yes I agree the Galileo thought experiment doesn’t work. The resolution of the argument in water is that the (terminal) velocity in water is proportional to *density* rather than mass. So joining the two objects by string will produce an intermediate density and so an intermediate terminal velocity.

[@KripkeSaul]

Maybe a video about Putnam's attempt to bridge the gap?

[@avaevathornton9851]

I think part one was meant to mean something like "imagine you are someone who doesn't have any prior belief in objective moral values, I will now show such a person could reason their way to utilitarianism". Needless to say, though, his argument doesn't actually show that.

[@salisburymoseley]

P5 Harris says 'if' we should do anything. 'If'. In other words we could just do nothing but if we do decide to do something then it should not cause unnecessary suffering. P3 addresses P1 - its not a contradiction.

[@salisburymoseley]

@@LanceBush I thought this presentation was terrible. They just came across as 2 jeering students trying to punch above their weight. What would you say Harris rhetorical flourishes were..? I generally find him pedantically methodical with a touch of humour. I don't think he obfuscates at all.

[@simonfreebody]

I suppose P5 is the normative proposition yes. I am guessing somehow Harris feels that this proposition stems from some observation about the structure of (normal) human minds/brains? And therefore gives it some status as purely positive? Not sure if he can technically do that

[@Locrian08]

Hearing that Cole is as irritated by Harris as I am is refreshing.

[@peterp-a-n4743]

I think its totally unprofessional and dispensable. Of course he is wrong but just keep ad hominems out of this.

[@carsonwall2400]

​@@peterp-a-n4743Bashing Sam Harris is not only acceptable but required lol

[@peterp-a-n4743]

@@carsonwall2400 why?

[@mikeshivak]

After 15 minutes of ad hom, maybe there is gold in minute 20 but I won't ever know.

[@ihossi22]

Yes, very good. The Rickest Rick and Cool Cat Kane.

[@tgenov]

If we can't get from an is to an ought then what are we to make of all the philosophical normatives one utilizes when"playing the game" of philosophy? How would philosophy bootstrap itself? Evaluation and appraisal standards for reasoning would be impossible to acquire; and philosophy itselff would be impossible to be practiced. As a computer scientist (and an anti-philosopher) I know where I stand on the issue of bootstrapping...circularity/infinite regress is a feature not a bug.

[@ahmedjibran4974]

Can a non philosophy student see your videos because I watched whole video and it was a little difficult to understand

[@KaneB]

Our goal was to make this accessible to a wide audience - we may have failed on this. Is there any part in particular that you difficult to follow?

[@ahmedjibran4974]

@@KaneB the most important thing in this video I guess Galileo explanation

[@Jake-kn3xg]

Sham Arris

[@cloudoftime]

Harris' snark about the terminology is annoying at best, especially considering his preferred use of language that many a layperson might refer to as pretentious. I mean, how often in common parlance do you hear someone use the word "odious" and how often do you hear Harris use this word? He's got more than a few gems like that, and I have no issue with him using those words, it just makes him a bit hypocritical. That said, I really like the way Cole explained how it's best practices. Some people take issue with terminology like this, and I try to explain to them the utility of it. Every field and category will have it's own terminology, whether you're talking about: a bobbin, an ease, or a fusible interfacing in sewing; a camshaft position actuator solenoid, a continuously variable transmission, or a catalytic converter in auto mechanics; or epistemic normativity, threshold deontology, or eliminative materialism in philosophy. The categorization helps with organization and communication; these labels represent concepts that would take much longer to explain each time you wanted to reference them without the label. Harris' complaint here highlights one of the more egregious issues with pop philosophy, and he is just adding fuel to the confirmation bias that many uninitiated people have in thinking that philosophy is just boring "fancy words" and drivel.

[@ancley6849]

How we establish the basic moral standard? Well, according to Harris we do that at looking at the facts. If you by accident touch something that is hot and then instinctively try to avoid the pain it causes, then the act of avoiding pain is what defines the moral standard. We shouldn't avoid the pain because avoiding the pain is good. The fact that we avoid the pain allows us to construct a moral standard based on which avoiding the pain would be good. I therefore disagree that we can't come to the conclusion that is good to minimize suffering by appealing to science or by appealing to facts. If our biological setup works in the way that we act in the way to minimize suffering then from the perspective of our biological setup acting in the way to minimize suffering is indeed good because that's what we do by 'biological design'. Not necessarily objectively good, of course, but good based on the moral standard we constructed from how we function biologically, therefore by appealing to science, to an 'is' instead of an 'ought'.

[@Liliquan]

Harris is the Moral God of the New World. Don't you dare question his holiness.

[@matthewalan59]

I am an avid squash player. The objective of squash is to make your opponent wish he (or she) were dead. You do this by running your opponent from one position to another in a way that requires a maximum exertion. So, if I am countering a drop shot and my opponent is close behind me, then a high gentle lob over my opponent's head to the very back of the court will maximize my opponent's misery. I just happen to be listening to your discussion as I lie in bed. Earlier today I indulged in too much squash and now I am paying the price. The muscles in my feet and legs are, as a result of my indulgence, very prone right now to severe and painful cramping. Just some thoughts that occur to me as you contemplate hitting Frank in the face.

[@transcendentphilosophy]

One common misconception is that Sam's wellbeing ethic is utilitarianism at the expense of deontology. Yet, Sam insinuates that his wellbeing ethic is a synthesis between utilitarianism and deontology. To the extent that deontology makes brains happy, it should be prioritized. Per "The Moral Landscape" - "To the degree that treating people as ends in themselves is a good way to safeguard human well-being, it is precisely what we should do."

[@kennethconnally4356]

I'm not sure in what sense this is a "synthesis" of consequentialism and deontology. He seems to simply be saying that we may sometimes end up taking the same action on a consequentialist basis that a deontologist would also recommend, something nobody would deny.

[@transcendentphilosophy]

@@kennethconnally4356 Treating people as "ends" is philosophically equivalent to respecting their deontological rights. Hence, Sam is saying - if rights make people more happy (wellbeing) than consequences, then we should prefer rights for the purpose of wellbeing.

[@hharvey6492]

​@@transcendentphilosophy this is very plausibly still consequentialist tho. it's just that utility is identified with wellbeing, so ofc acting according to rules is right if it produces more well being. this is exactly the same structure as "following the law will produce more happiness. we should increase happiness. so we should follow the law". this is still utilitarian, and doesn't at all imply that our moral theory is somehow a legal deontological one

[@transcendentphilosophy]

@@hharvey6492 I agree that it is still consequentialism. The problem is that Sam's critics dont even realize he is synthesizing deontology into his consequentialism.

[@hharvey6492]

@@transcendentphilosophy that isn't synthesising deontology into consequentialism, it's just that sometimes, obviously, maximising wellbeing will lead to the following of certain rules. it's less sophisticated than rule utilitarianism even. (also, harris explicitly thinks that talking about deontology is boring, so even if we do interpret this as a synthesis of deontology and consequentialism (maybe plausible), it isn't cuz harris did it on purpose lol)

[@StefanTravis]

"There is no philosophical position that is not latently political." - Thomas Mann "I don't believe in value-free metaphysics" - Frederich Coppleston I think these people are probably right. That most or all is-statements presuppose a load of implicit ought-statements. I also think ought-statements come from societal power structures and power struggles. So, we can get is-statement from other is-statements, and ought-statements from other ought-statements, and buried back in the murky too-obvious-to-state underpinnings of (probably) every is-statement... is a mess of oughts, which incidentally contradict each other, because values and politics are constantly shifting, and people are massive hypocrites. Does this mean we can get an ought from an is? No. Just that we get is-statements from unacknowledged oughts.

[@radicaldreamer46]

As per premise 5, consider the following x is True (1) ∴ ¬ x → False this is logically sound. as we can break it down to ¬¬ x ∨ False (DNE) → x ∨ False → x (with (1)) → True Note that if you use intuitionistic logic that double negation elimination (DNE) is not really a given, and you'd have to do more work. Thus, if you grant x, a statement that hinges on not x implies y is fine. However if you are trying for a proof by contradiction, then this statement is absurd and the resulting y can no longer be implied.

[@mileskeller5244]

This is a somewhat poor rebuttal of Sam Harris as there is an openly admitted bias against him instead of purely attacking the premises. It's a bit of a strawman. I am curious as to why the female professor hates Sam Harris so much.

[@landonpontius2478]

I think Harris is making some important points, points that are more or less given merit in this video. Namely that much of academic moral philosophy has gotten so focused on the inside baseball nature of the field that its lost the plot. This is an hour long video of what seems to amount to a lot of formatting critique of a tweet thread as if it was a formal philosophical argument rather than a conversational argument. Harris is simply saying that morality is aimed at well-being (in the same way that politics and science are) and that well-being is grounded in the intrinsic value of conscious experience. And that we can make sense of this using descriptive language. If we are not talking about human flourishing and an effort to define the ideal human relationships when we're doing moral philosophy, what are we talking about? Philosophers can scoff at him all they want but his ideas on the subject are so disproportionately popular because he is supplying an explanation of morality that they can 1) understand and 2) can recognize the relevance of in real life...something that much of modern philosophy seems largely unable to do.

[@RyanApplegatePhD]

I think one bias that probably exists for many scientists is that science is the ultimate arbiter of facts about the world, ie science says A, any or all other systems posit not A -> science is correct. So the the overall flow of the argument is to derive a moral ought from science facts AND accept any oughts contained in the science facts, like the point of life is to reproduce the fit according to natural selection.

[@solomonherskowitz]

Great discussion

[@iansowden8049]

It was interesting and valuable to hear your complete analysis. I agree with the conclusions reached but why drop to the level of the trolls and give them ammunition to ignor the arguments. Maybe I'm an old fashioned English moderate who doesn't fit in with modern expression but I am disappointed.

[@jijnasa8356]

But the hatred for Sam Harris from Cole was obnoxious and cringe

[@justus4684]

40:42 Hahahha I love the german

[@alst4817]

Late to the party here, but I definitely disagree with the way you have dismissed Harris’ arguments. There is a long tradition in philosophy of scholars dismissing a traditional‘problem’ because of the way it is set up. That’s all he tried to do. Attempting to gate keep philosophy in the way you are doing just makes you look like you don’t understand his reply. Let me give you an example: GE Moore’s reply to a general solipsism. Here is a hand…etc. does not ‘engage’ with literature on general skepticism because as his reply ably demonstrates, the best answer to that problem comes from outside of the bounds of the problem itself. Of course, a brain in a vat appears to be a tricky problem, but only for those who choose to ignore everything outside of the problem itself. Like all good philosophical problems, by accepting the rules to the game, you very often set yourself up for failure. Now, Harris’ reply to the is ought problem is very explicitly along the same lines. He mentions putting one’s hand on a hot stove, because that example is obvious enough (like ‘here is a hand’) to try to jolt people out of the rules of the is ought game. Whether he is successful or not is another issue, but dismissing that move out of hand is actually far more embarrassing. You further claim that the is ought gap is not a problem at all, and that Harris focusing on it is further proof of his inadequacy as a philosopher. What? If the is ought problem were to be fairly solved with many mainstream philosophers of different stripes agreeing that it had been, it would absolutely change how moral philosophy is done, no question.

[@OsiasArt]

Excellent work here. The Moral Landscape has been driving me mad for years and I've been meaning to make several videos on its manifold errors and basic mistakes in logic, but it looks like I no longer have to. Subscribed.

[@goodquestion7915]

I think that most of the field of Moral Philosophy is just like the field of Epicycles in Astronomy. Many people consider it a complex field of study, and there are schools of thought about them. The reason for my derision of it is that the point of view is wrong, just like Epicycles. Moral Philosophy is based on the observer (judge of moral deeds). Instead, it should be based on the nervous system that experiences moral actions. From that point of view, everything becomes clear. The pain of a person or an ant is morally bad, even if no one else is watching. Why the suffering of an ant is morally bad? Easy, imagine that the pain is "magically" transferred to you, what do you think now? "Should" that pain be removed? Or, "should" others just watch without doing anything? It suddenly becomes a moral situation, right? Epicycles are a BAD point of view.

[@sirtheodorefranciswindsor]

Always wrong? Hmmm.

[@KaneB]

Yes, always wrong. Wrong about everything. (Not really, of course. But that's close enough to the truth that it works as a simplified summary. Lol.)

[@fanboy8026]

Thank goodness I didn't read that book

[@Milan_Rosko]

I agree that Sam Harris is wrong, but it’s not because he dismisses Philosophy. You can dismiss the old or modern traditions of Philosophy or certain Structures that are associated with Philosophy - and still be right.

[@ColeNasrallah]

I think both Kane and I are pretty clear that we aren't gatekeeping, and that Harris is wrong for the 734,893,952 reasons we discuss in the video.

[@adreaminxy]

Now tell us how you really feel :)

[@johnwhorfin3815]

In human relations & ethics, the first philosophical principle is the problem of other minds. You have to admit that nothing empirical takes you past this.

[@Milan_Rosko]

15:26 Actually you can attack (P1) from a Mahyana Buddhist/“Qualia zombie” standpoint.

[@mohitoness]

Mahayana does not deny the existence of suffering

[@Milan_Rosko]

Suffering is Atman. "Atman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is selflessness. "

[@blinzy7282]

I have never heard any of those terms and they do sound boring and like a secret language that people who specialize in any field of study create to talk about aspects of their fields and all fields have their own language, such as mathematics, every field of science has their own terms. I am not a Sam Harris fan, but I am trying to understand why people don't like Sam Harris, not knowing much about him. It you are going to talk with the public, using common terms and explaining thing in more accessible language is a good idea, otherwise you might as well be the high priest of your subject preaching your info in Latin to non-Latin speakers and telling them their stupid if they don't get it. I think these 2 are a little too close their favorite subject to see things like others might see it, but most of us are.

[@nickmorris2250]

I think the personal attacks really distract from the content in this video and seem totally out of place for professional philosophers critiquing someone's work. If your objective is to educate lay people who have been exposed to Harris before then this is a bad approach. I understand that he disparaged your profession etc. but the personal attacks on his character and implying he had malicious intent in formulating his argument the way he did just seems like an overblown response.

[@nrcbl]

I only skimmed through the video, but I had recently thought about the is-ought gap as I conceived it and came to believe it shouldn't be considered unbridgeable. The bridge is obviously defining what 'ought' is. You discussed how any logical argument must include a statement about a concept before it can derive statements about it (All men are mortal therefore all philosophers are mortal). I have heard Harris try to justify his position with claiming that what we mean when we say one should do something 'is' that it will reduce suffering. He's wrong. That's not what I mean when I say someone should do something.

[@squatch545]

The title of this video should really be Why Sam Harris Sucks.

[@peterp-a-n4743]

The man may be completely wrong with this and only embarrasses himself when he talks about the is ought gap but I think it's still a mistake to dunk and hate on him. I think he is one of the most intellectually honest people and no amount of BS somebody talks should take away an iota of his merits. (Similar with JBP - the guy talks a lot(!) of nonsense especially when he has his politics hat on but this doesn't take away from his knowledge about topics like psychology.) I wish there were less of wholesale endorsements or condemnations in general.

[@absupinhere]

You guys don’t suck :) (Lmfao She’d put her hand on a hot stove to shut him up XD)

[@gabri41200]

Sam be like: >lets assume there are no shoulds > if we should do anything in this life Wait a minute, i thought we shouldn't do anything

[@shwetasinghnm]

Thank God . Now i know i m not the only one who thinks Sam Harris is a mediocre mind with little to no depth. Also his sense of certitude about his own thoughts is alarming and rings the narcissism bells for me. He never seems to have doubts about something as amorphous as philosophy. Especially his ideas about well being etc and how science can measure value are so simplistic, its laughable.

[@veganworldorder9394]

If you define "ought" in terms of descriptive words, then you can logically get an ought from an is. If you take "ought" as a fundamental concept that can't be defined any further, then you can't logically get an ought from an is.

[@hharvey6492]

sure, but you still have to introduce ought in a premise, even if the premise is just a definition. ur not getting from an is to an ought deductively

[@squatch545]

Rationality Rules actually takes Sam Harris seriously.

[@nightmare_automata]

He also liked Molyneux... So... Yeah, I don't take RR seriously.

[@samuelgeorge8524]

Lol Lol Lol!!!!!!!! Thank you for this comedy so much! So intelligibly dumb! Enjoy mates!

[@paulaustinmurphy]

Many of the people who reject Sam Harris's *philosophical* positions are actually motivated by his *political* positions. That is, because they have a problem with his politics, then that gives them the motivation to attack his philosophies. The same is true of Jordan Peterson - whose psychological and philosophical positions are attacked by people who really (or mainly) have a problem with his politics. And then there's Steven Pinker, about whom exactly the same things can be said. (Indeed one critic in the thread below has a go at Pinker too.) All these people have ideological-incorrect views which illicit very strong emotional and political reactions from partisans. It doesn't help when Kane B uses words like "sucks", etc. and then they both snigger at Harris at the beginning of the video. Now I've never heard Kane B use such words about other philosophers and other philosophical positions. Then again, these other philosophers and philosophical positions won't be strongly tied to *contemporary* politics, as is the case with Sam Harris. In addition, is Kane B accusing Sam Harris of not doing philosophy in the way that analytic philosophers (such as himself) do philosophy? Is that what it all boils down to? If that's the case, then Sam Harris will hold his hand up and happily say that he doesn't use the jargon, stylistic gimmicks, self-conscious pedantry, etc. that at least some analytic philosophers often display (especially young postgrads). And Harris will believe that this is a very good thing too! So is it wrong to Tweet on philosophy? That seems to be Kane B's position, otherwise why did he sneer at such a thing? In addition, if argumentation, clarity of terms, etc. is important to Kane B, then how does he feel about the fact that his video has brought about lots of ad hominems, abuse, juvenile one-liners, etc. directed against Sam Harris in the comments section below? Sure, he can't be held responsible for this. But there do seem to be strong emotional reactions against Harris. As it is, I'm not a fan of Sam Harris "spiritual" views, his over-emphasis on meditation, etc.. And some times he can be a little too "new age" for my liking. I'm also intuitively sceptical about anyone bridging the is-ought gap. But at least Harris does argue his case (though Kane believes he doesn't) and he's often a lot clearer than most academic analytic philosophers and certainly more unbiased that 90% of people who write on political issues. All this may not be applicable to what is said in this video. In other words, all the above may be beside the point. So I'll give it a watch. But I thought I'd state these things first just to see how they match up with what's said in the Kane B video on Sam Harris.

[@KaneB]

Based on what I know of Harris's political views, none of them strike me as particularly outlandish. Isn't he basically a moderate liberal? I've always assumed that his most controversial position is his criticism of religion, but I pretty much agree with him on that point. In any case, I'm the last person who'll be jumping on any "cancel culture" bandwagons. If Harris's argument about the is/ought gap were any good, I'd be happy to say as much, even if he were an outright Nazi. As for other philosophers and philosophical positions not being tied to politics... come on dawg. Nearly every major figure in philosophy has had something to say about political philosophy, and many of them are still relevant today. "In addition, is Kane B accusing Sam Harris of not doing philosophy in the way that analytic philosophers (such as himself) do philosophy? Is that what it all boils down to?" My favourite philosopher is Paul Feyerabend. He started in the analytic tradition, but gradually shifted away from it in his later work. Only a few months ago, I uploaded a couple of videos on Max Stirner, and the analytic tradition didn't even exist when he was writing. "So is it wrong to Tweet on philosophy? That seems to be Kane B's position, otherwise why did he sneer at such a thing?" I've never sneered at tweeting and I don't have a problem with people tweeting philosophy. I'm very much in favour of doing philosophy on all possible forms of social media. But if you're going to do it, you should do it well. Harris doesn't do it well. "In addition, if argumentation, clarity of terms, etc. is important to Kane B, then how do he feel about the fact that his video has brought about lots of ad hominems, abuse, juvenile one-liners, etc. directed against Sam Harris?" First, abuse and juvenile one-liners are entirely compatible with good argumentation and clarity of terms. More importantly, what exactly is the issue here supposed to be? It's not news that the youtube comments section rarely produces good arguments. Nor do I see anything necessarily wrong with this. I don't expect people to be constantly providing arguments for everything they say. Sometimes, somebody might just want to express their feelings, or they might want to make a joke, or they might want to engage in some sort of dadaist performance art... or whatever. The problem with Harris is that he's presenting this garbage as serious argumentation, and he's doing it to a fairly large audience. I'm far less concerned about random people commenting on youtube videos. "at least Harris does argue his case (though Kane believes he doesn't)" We spend the main chunk of the video criticizing Harris's argument line-by-line. So why would you think that I believe he doesn't argue for his position?

[@paulaustinmurphy]

@@KaneB You wrote: "Based on what I know of Harris's political views, none of them strike me as particularly outlandish. Isn't he basically a moderate liberal?" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you mustn't be aware of the heaps of highly-critical political stuff that's been written on Sam Harris's political positions. Only a minute's Google-time will show you that. To put is in crude terms - many on the Left hate him. They also distinguish his own "liberalism" (which you mention) from their own "radical Leftism". "If Harris's argument about the is/ought gap were any good, I'd be happy to say as much, even if he were an outright Nazi." I never accused you of anything. I simply thought that you (or your readers) would be interested in what I've noted. But since you don't seem to be aware of the political controversies surrounding Sam Harris (e.g., his criticisms of Islam, of leftwing politics, people linking him to the Alt Right, etc.), then that's fair enough. "As for other philosophers and philosophical positions not being tied to politics... come on dawg. Nearly every major figure in philosophy has had something to say about political philosophy, and many of them are still relevant today." Perhaps I wasn't very clear. Most of the philosophers you have presented videos on (i.e., mainly analytic philosophers and philosophies) are not that closely linked to politics. And I also used the words "contemporary politics". Videos about Stirner or Nietzsche are not what I had in mind. "My favourite philosopher is Paul Feyerabend." My God! He too was very keen on rhetorical and very vague statements which are far worse than anything Sam Harris has written. But Feyerabend also offers complex arguments too - in his *academic* writings. That's one of my points - the distinction between the purely academic and the non-academic. "I've never sneered at tweeting and I don't have a problem with people tweeting philosophy." At the beginning of the video, that's precisely what both of you do. Perhaps I misinterpreted your expressions and words. "First, abuse and juvenile one-liners are entirely compatible with good argumentation and clarity of terms. " Yes; though not in your comments section. Unless you're referring to your own comments, "More importantly, what exactly is the issue here supposed to be?" There is no "the issue" with the definite article. And the issues are the issues I've stated. I'm not sure what your question means. "We spend the main chunk of the video criticizing Harris's argument line-by-line. So why would you think that I believe he doesn't argue for his position?" Isn't that your position? That Harris doesn't argue his case? That's the general impression I suspect that most viewers will extract from your words. Or do you mean that Harris doesn't argue his case in the same way (with the same style) as you would argue your case?

[@ColeNasrallah]

@@paulaustinmurphy I feel like I should step in here. The first ~8 minutes of the video discuss an excerpt from Harris' *book* "The Moral Landscape." So, certainly not a tweet. I brought this excerpt to Kane's attention, and suggested that we should include it in this video. I made this suggestion because both Kane and I wanted to include our thoughts on pop philosophy and epistemic responsibility. I am also aware that Harris and some of his ilk are keen to claim that philosophers who criticize Harris' arguments are gatekeeping. Hell, Harris make this claim himself, in the excerpt I suggested we include. Incidentally, Kane and I laugh a bit at Harris when he dismisses moral philosophers because we make him "bored." Neither Kane, nor I, are of the position that one cannot present a serious argument on Twitter, and certainly neither Kane nor I are of the position that one cannot present a serious argument in their books. It is worth noting, Harris has also debated this argument with Sean Carroll and presented it in a TED talk. So, *wtf* do we actually *do* in this video? We discuss first a passage from Harris' book, where he discusses his reasons for ignoring objections to his argument, and sneers at philosophers. We briefly outline the Is-Ought gap (for non-academic audiences). We then line-by-line discuss the numerous failings of Harris' argument. There's no politics. There are some jokes. And, of course, all conversations of "sucking" are initiated by Harris. Which you would know, if you watched the video you so boldly pre-judged.

[@paulaustinmurphy]

@@ColeNasrallah wrote: "The first ~8 minutes of the video discuss an excerpt from Harris' book "The Moral Landscape." So, certainly not a tweet." You mentioned Sam Harris's tweet at the beginning of the video and laughed at it. That's all I'm referring to. I've already made that point to Kane. "I made this suggestion because both Kane and I wanted to include our thoughts on pop philosophy and epistemic responsibility. " I don't want to be philistine here. But the term "epistemic responsibility" is highly pompous. If this is an introductory video, I suggest you don't use it. However, you may take my view as a Harris-ism. "I am also aware that Harris and some of his ilk are keen to claim that philosophers who criticize Harris' arguments are gatekeeping." Who belongs to Harris's "ilk"? Really, what is "his ilk"? "Incidentally, Kane and I laugh a bit at Harris when he dismisses moral philosophers because we make him "bored."" You can offer reasoned and logical arguments as to why some philosophy is boring. I've done it myself. But I can't say if Harris has. It seems that Kane and you seem to have the same interests, dislikes and views on this. So no wonder you're at one. Do you ever disagree with each other in other videos? "Neither Kane, nor I, are of the position that one cannot present a serious argument on Twitter..." Sorry, that's exactly the impression I got. I may be wrong. Others in your comments section seem to have interpreted the video in similar ways. In any case, this is ground that Kane covered in a previous reply. And I replied to him. "... and sneers at philosophers." Which is exactly what you and Kane do when it comes to Sam Harris and possibly others too. "We briefly outline the Is-Ought gap (for non-academic audiences). We then line-by-line discuss the numerous failings of Harris' argument." That's fair enough. "There's no politics. " True, not in the video. "Which you would know, if you watched the video you so boldly pre-judged." Sorry. I explicitly stated that I hadn't watched the whole video in my first comment. And I even admitted that I may be wrong about the politics. So I didn't pre-judge it. Read my initial comment again. As for the philosophy, I'll get back but I suspect that I'll largely agree with you and Kane on the is-ought gap. As it is, though, metaethics (if that's what it is) is not my subject.

[@ColeNasrallah]

@@paulaustinmurphy (Edit: I just re-watched the first 8 minutes, I merely smile when Kane mentions Twitter. There isn't even laughter.) So, if I understand you correctly, you're tone policing us, about what you perceive to be our tone policing of Harris? I'm giggling a bit about that, but that's because I laugh a lot! And, in fairness, it's pretty funny. It seems pretty clear that you don't know Kane or me. We laugh a lot; we disagree a lot (especially about metaethics); ultimately, we try to offer entertaining, yet substantive arguments and discussions. If you choose to take laughter as always derisive, that's unfortunate and seems like it's going to lead you a lot of faulty beliefs. Our objections are entirely to the erroneous reasoning Harris continues to peddle across various mediums, packaged in cheap insults (Sorry Harris, _boredom_ is a _you_ problem), despite a decade of substantive criticism.

[@carlsagan2371]

It was really nice of Kane to invite his hot mum onto the stream to have a chat.

[@pmispeed2]

Inb4 this comment section is completely overrun by IDW cultists

[@ladev91]

Thats not even really a thing anymore.

[@suddenuprising]

Kane and Cole are a match made in heaven.

[@simonfreebody]

Sam Harris has a BA in philosophy from Stanford and a PhD from the university of California. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make you smarter than them.

[@KaneB]

I never made any claims about how smart Sam Harris is. The problem is that his arguments are appalling bad. The smarter he is, and the more knowledgeable he is, the less of an excuse he has for that.

[@simonfreebody]

Yeah. I appreciate what u guys are doing and it’s Super interesting. I think with P4 he is just claiming that suffering exists and we know the biological basis for it (he is a neuroscientist so I suppose that would make sense to him). My mind twists a bit with his P5. If it was reformulated as: “to cause unnecessary net suffering is bad” would that be descriptive or normative?

[@ColeNasrallah]

I'm not sure how to say this more explicitly than I do when I literally say it in the video, but I can absolutely reiterate it: I do not think Harris is a stupid man. I think this argument is awful, for the reasons we detailed. I am sincerely baffled as to why anyone in his position would try to "close" the Is-Ought gap. I think these problems are a result of his refusal to engage with philosophy, and a fundamental misunderstanding of metaethics and logic.

[@simonfreebody]

@Oners82 I suppose my objection is how the arrogance got in the way of a perfectly good podcast.

[@simonfreebody]

@Oners82 yeah that’s fair enough I suppose. To be honest I don’t really like Harris’s philosophy myself because I suspect that it’s not possible to know what the consequences of an action are. Still, its a shame to dismiss Harris’s argument based on what appears to be a drunken tweet. The original ted talk he gives is quite thought provoking and not really about the nature of logic (I don’t think). Having said that I’m no professor.

[@voidoflife7058]

Yeah sam generally sucks, especially on this. Meditation is the only thing I appreciate about him these days.

[@alnickortiz7376]

Perhaps awkwardly, Harris is saying nothing more than this: Moral Realism is Almost Certainly True: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKCZgJSFr9qsgq8

[@suntorytimes1]

(P1) We should avoid things that suck (granted) (P2) Sam Harris sucks (proof: try reading one of his books and report back; also, this video) (C) We should avoid Sam Harris.

[@scuub8864]

Sam Harris = wack. Love this

[@SouthPark333Gaming]

Sam Harris is so predictable, boring and inconsistent. A very poor excuse for an intellectual

[@troyzieman7177]

A better title , why internet wanna be intellectuals are always wrong.

[@samuelgeorge8524]

Lol. Lol. lol. Wow. You chaps are funny and naive.

[@Voivode.of.Hirsir]

Could you elaborate?

[@sqlblindman]

Tried my best to listen to this, but after fifteen minutes without a single substantive criticism of Harris I realized that the two of you are just butt-hurt that Sam did not pay "respekt to ur phulosophee". In what branch of philosophy is scoffing considered a method of academic inquiry? unsubscribed

[@badsocks756]

LOL sad

[@sqlblindman]

@@badsocks756 LOL sad

[@KaneB]

You're either trolling or an idiot, but I do want to point out - just in case we didn't make this clear in the video - that what's wrong with Sam Harris isn't that he's dismissive of metaethics, it's that his dismissal of it is based on shoddy reasoning. Indeed, his criticism of metaethics amounts to little more than scoffing. One of my favourite philosophers is Paul Feyerabend, who was viciously critical of large areas of philosophy that I rather like. I know that Cole is a fan of Richard Rorty, a man who has the distinction of being one of the very few philosophers who, upon coming to the conclusion that the analytic tradition was misguided, actually put his money where his mouth was and left. I'm very attracted to empiricism, and as such have a dismissive attitude towards much of metaphysics. Nobody is required to "respect" metaethics. But if you are going to write about metaethics, which Harris does, basic standards of academic scholarship require you to have an understanding of the field, which Harris does not.

[@sqlblindman]

@@KaneB "You're either trolling or an idiot," ...or I hit the nail on the head. "what's wrong with Sam Harris isn't that he's dismissive of metaethics" One would never know that from the first 15 minutes of your video, would they? Because that is all you harped on. "... it's that his dismissal of it is based on shoddy reasoning." One would never know that from the first 15 minutes of your video, would they? Because you never demonstrated that. "Indeed, his criticism of metaethics amounts to little more than scoffing." Much like your criticism of him, right? "if you are going to write about metaethics, which Harris does, basic standards of academic scholarship require you to have an understanding of the field" I know you like to think of your profession as having all the rigors of physics, or biology, or any of the hard sciences...but it does not. Nobody needs to pay homage to your academic heritage. Plus, Harris does have a degree in philosophy. Anyone who can think has the right and the ability to express their philosophical ideas. Harris was very plain in stating that he arrived his ideas independently of classical philosophy. That does not invalidate them. Face it. You are both just butthurt.

[@KaneB]

@@sqlblindman "...or I hit the nail on the head." Well, "A or B" entails "A or B or C", so yes. Since it's true that you're trolling or you're an idiot (and your response here provides ample justification for this claim), it's true that you're trolling, or you're an idiot, or you hit the nail on the head.