How fucking depressing is this? This is the first time i hear about Michael Brooks, through this video literally... then i started watching other videos of his and i was very impressed by his views. So i went to Twitter to follow him, and found out he died a week ago 😔. Rest in peace
Just read Harris' email correspondence with Chomsky. Harris repeatedly asking Chomsky questions about "intentions" like he is a first year philosophy student studying Ethics 101.
@@mikedematteo4672 Chomsky just said it was irrelevant because nobody's making an abstract moral comparison between the US and al Qaeda, outside of a philosophy seminar real world impact is all that matters.
@@GiantSandles Intentions are the basis of real world impact. They tell you what someone will do in the future. If the US did not in fact intend to destroy the pharmaceutical plant and kill thousands of people, it’s unlikely they will do such a thing again. If it was their intention, they would likely continue to commit such atrocities and thereby have a negative real world impact. It actually matters what someone’s intention is, not just the consequence of their action. There’s a reason manslaughter and murder don’t carry the same sentencing.
@@motorhead48067 They’re also virtually impossible to discern so it seems irrelevant. Also if someone undertakes an action which they know could or is even likely to have a negative effect and it has that effect, whether or not they necessarily *intended* to have that effect seems kind of beside the point. The difference between them and someone who specifically wanted that outcome isn’t *that* important to me
"She's not a civil rights activist on the ground. She's not someone who's working for the rights of women in Pakistan. She's not a reformer in Iran." Perfectly stated about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
If you're going to play that game, then what are your bona fides? You do know that she would probably be kidnapped / killed in Pakistan or Iraq don't you?
Manny Lenz Malala Yousafzai was willing to put her life on the line to help the cause of reform as are the many women who protest the misogyny in Saudi Arabia by simply driving, in contrast Hirsi Ali has made a lucrative career of palling with neocons and european fascists.
I'm always amazed that someone like Harris is as popular as he is. Having read the exchange, Harris comes off as smug and intellectually dishonest. He's like an atheist version of Sean Hannity.
Phlebas You should watch some of his debates with religious apologists. Sam Harris gets plenty of things wrong (as everyone does) but he's one of the most articulate and well-read public intellectuals I've ever listened to.
Jacob Jepson I've seen clips of Sam Harris, and yes; he occasionally makes good points and words them well, but I can think of a tonne of people who are far more interesting to listen to than him. And the issue isn't so much that he gets things wrong - it's the things that he's wrong about. These aren't exactly minor issues that one can just ignore; he's essentially trying to give a secular liberal spin to sociopathic neoconservative ideas, so it makes it very hard for me to respect the guy in any way. Edit: Just to add, for someone who often talks about morality... hell, he wrote a book on it... his understanding of the subject matter seems pretty shallow.
Sam Harris' whole point is to to make you understand that "they" are barbaric, dangerous and savage; we are not. So whatever evil deeds we do, it is never as bad as theirs, because we have the moral high ground. That is the substrate which his entire reasoning relies upon. In other words, he looks at the world though the "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" lens... This made me puke so hard!
Coos Oorlog Chomsky doesn't make argumentation.He and his sycophants all just jump to the false argument that he's the authority. Why do you think he gets testy when someone questions him on a transparent issue, like the value of intent in morality.
charlesvan13 You Harris's acolytes really have no shame. When your brothers and sisters are killed by bombs you don't give a damn about "intention". Plus there is no evidence whatsoever that the stated intention equals real intention. One thing that Harris can do, but won't is to stick to his own (even though stupid) intellectual standards. Example: Hezbollah attacked Israel because of a noble cause which is occupation of Lebanon. Is that okay with Sam then? how about Hamas that attacked Israel for a noble cause which is freeing Palestine, does he use his "thought experiment" in this direction? no! of course not. It is only reserved for his own side.
+charlesvan13 actually he did argue a lot and he didn't "get testy" when asked about the value of intentions. He pointed Harris to specific parts of texts of his own where he had already adressed this subject and where Harris' arguments were already torn to shreds years before he even wrote The End of Faith. Then he pressured Harris to withdraw his comments that Chomsky had ignored the value of intentions, since he had just proven by his own citations that he did not ignore it and had instead adressed it exhaustively in previous work. Instead of recognizing his error, Harris just kept moving on to other examples or kept complaining about Chomsky's tone instead. The other thing that kept coming back was Harris saying "I'm still confused about your position on intentions". Either the guy can't read or he's a bit simple minded. I think it's a little bit of both. Harris is so used of throwing around words for which he doesn't really grasp the meaning that when he reads such words he just seems to glide over and move on as if they weren't there. And then he just repeats that he doesn't understand. Yet, despite his own admission of failing to understand Chomsky's points, that hasn't stopped him from keeping the charge. I mean you reach out to someone because you claim to want to understand their view. They explain it to you. You recognize that you don't really understand their point. Instead of just thinking to himself "well... I ought to spend more time understanding it and won't adress this person's view until I do", he thinks "well, I'm confused about his position, therefore I will keep talking publicly about this person's position exactly as if I had never spoken to him". That this guy still has fans after this e-mail exchange is proof enough that his followers are just that : followers. A bunch of sheeps who will take Harris' side no matter what he says or how stupid he gets.
Peterthesneakybastard , I would like to answer this one , because he’s a bigot hate monger and he’s misleading people , don’t believe me ? Let me show you ,I am Muslim and I swear I love humanity and when I hear ppl like Sam talk it really bothers me that he is misleading many ppl , I challenge you or anyone in the whole world specially mr Sam , point out just 1 verse which goes against humanity as a whole I will become an atheist immediately , no interpretation of anyone open up the book and point out a single verse which goes against humanity as a whole , is there anyone who will take up the challenge ?????
I recently had an "argument" with some Harris fanboys on youtube (already a mistake) which just devolved to petty insults about my appearance but I find that rather common with the more obsessive of his fanboys. A significant chunk of them seem to range in age from the hate-their-religious-parents 15 to the insufferable think they know everything college sophomore. Harris is part of their identity so they can't stand criticism of him because it means criticism of them.
Ronin Dave What also pisses me off is how when you point out that he supports torture and racial profiling they always say "You took him out of context 11!!!!!11!!!" or some stupid shit like that.
Ronin Dave When you have finished name calling Harris 'fans' for name calling.... Then maybe you can get back to your studies or you do realise you won't graduate.
The reason Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't living in Pakistan fighting for progressive values and women's rights is because her life is legitimately in danger from Muslim extremists.
***** Nah. There are moderate strains of Islam just as there are of every other religion. More importantly, you have to be autistic to think that denouncing the entirety of Islam (which is interwoven into the ancient culture of billions of people) will ever be productive.
Well, we disagree. You seem like an obsessed anti-refugee Islamophobe so I don't see us making much progress. Look at the number of Westerners who support Israel and bombing campaigns that have killed thousands of Muslims in recent decades. Every time Israel and Palestine clash, the death tolls are always 10:1 or 100:1. Many Muslims view themselves as the oppressed parties and suicide bombing / jihad as their only tools of reprisal. Are the pro-Israel Westerners the radicals? What about the majority of Americans who supported the Iraq War, which has killed hundreds of thousands? And you're wagging your finger over suicide bombers? Anyway, you are obviously arguing with a strawman and not worth the time. Islam can and has changed, as anybody with Muslim friends can attest. I'm certainly not worried about them cutting my head off or blowing me up.
This description of Harris and his audience is so accurate and well articulated. This is the first video I've ever seen from this guy and he nailed it. I wonder if he does live debates.
suejak1 Trust me, most of us westerners aren’t pro-Israel in fact a lot of us simply hate Israel for a lot what they did to America as well. I say this as a white American myself.
It is absolutely MIND BOGGLING that a man who holds intentions over REALITY can be regarded as an intellectual!!!! Have I stepped in to the Twilight Zone?!
Even at that Chomsky's view isn't that US foreign policy is to be judged without reference to intention, it's that the choices made are determined by corporate interests. So the value judgement of the political decisions that go along with that are based on preserving a particular type of internationalist capitalist economy because that is supposedly the "right" thing.
One thing that Harris can do, but won't is to stick to his own (even though stupid) intellectual standards. Example: Hezbollah attacked Israel because of a noble cause which is occupation of Lebanon. Is that okay with Sam then? how about Hamas that attacked Israel for a noble cause which is freeing Palestine, does he use his "thought experiment" in this direction? no! of course not. It is only reserved for his own side.
***** Champsky was never a polite debater. It is a matter of life and death, and he does not suffer fools gladly. This is not the high school debating team.
***** Agreed. Personally, I think it's a lot to do with Chomsky's age, not to be rude to him, but he seems to have become a bit more cantankerous than earlier in life. However, I agree with the thrust of his argument over Harris'.
***** No. you don't get the point. Sam's talking about a supposed scenario in Happyland. Like in that interview when a creationist tackled AronRa on the topic of the Big Bang instead of evolution, knowing full well that the topic is over his head. If he wants to debate on philosophical matters, why send the letter to Chomsky? Why not Slavoj Zizek or Daniel Dennett or some other self proclaimed atheist philosopher? _Hey Socrates, my car won't start and I have a malignant tumor on my forehead. What should I do?_ He used typical religious apologist tactics.
Both Slavoj Žižek and Daniel Dennet are bona fide philosophers. Dennet, for example, has been in the field for half a century with a PhD from Oxford, and his atheism is irrelevant to that. There was no self-proclamation involved.
TechnocraticBushman Sorry, I should've been clearer - I don't disagree with most of what you were saying, only that Dennet and Žižek are self-proclaimed philosophers - they're credible and authentic.
I like Sam Harris, but I read the exchange and found it funny that Haris himself admitted that Chomsky was "mopping the floor with him." But you can really tell from the exchange that Chomsky is just writing what he thinks. But Harris all the time is putting some kind of public show like he wants to look good or something. Chomsky has the art of just telling things as they are. But Sam Harris would probably make a better politician.
thought2007 "I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon-believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me-but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you." Yes, that's exactly what "Haris himself admitted". Just admit you skimmed this exchange, I would hazard no one was bored enough to read the whole thing; nothing of value was discussed.
Chino Gambino Well I read the exchange in full and Chomsky repeatedly asks for evidence of how he failed to fully explain his moral position on the Sudan Drug Factory bombing by Clinton. It obvious that Harris couldn't provide any evidence that Chomsky believed what Harris alleged he did.
Yeah, that why even when Chomsky directly points to where he has previously in print addressed Harris points, Harris never has the balls to admit he was wrong.
thought2007 Hey Sam, Your logics are so simplistic that it fails to understand the levers of what you call "intention", in that "intention" is not perennial rather circumstantial. In a military conflict that "intention" is influenced mainly by two factors: power & desperation in any given circumstance. US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and then of Nagasaki that killed 166K and 88K civilians respectively, largest in any single military strike in human history--at a time when Germany & Italy already surrendered and Japan blockaded and is certain to surrender, is according to most experts was a projection of new found nuclear power rather than out of desperation. Now let's look at another scenario where desperation might be on play: an asymmetric warfare where US is against a third world non-state militant. Let's call them party X. Party X in the face military struggle with a vastly superior power will inevitably strike soft civilian targets: marketplace, infrastructure, or worse: a bus full of civilians. They will do so because given the means they have that's the maximum pain they can inflict when they are facing arial bombing, missile attack, Apache strafing, drone attack, etc from their vastly superior adversary. Now someone like you will extrapolate that if these "savages" had atom bomb, they will use it on civilians (like US did). But what you miss is that if they had air force, conventional army, missiles like the US, and on the other hand, US became the third world country without military and air force... those same militants (now the imaginary super power) will not have the NEED to bomb buses or use suicide bombers...they will do exactly the same that US did: use air force, drone, etc.
thought2007 Try reading. SH said " I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon-believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me-but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you. I’d rather you not look like the dog who caught the car."
I like Sam Harris. Having spent many years listening to his measured and clear dissections of religious apologetics, and his very sensible suggestions for atheist spiritual activity, I find the hostility and contempt shown towards him on this thread and in other sectors, particularly of "the Left", to be both baffling and distressing. Just read a comment that labeled him "an idiot"...and I had to look up the word "idiot "again, just in case the meaning of the word had somehow changed whilst I was at work...because Sam Harris is no idiot! Neither, of course, is Chomsky. The exponential polarisation of these men and their supporters is insane. I suggest we stop buying into it.
taofist Once Harris started advocating treating all Arabs as inferior and claiming war crimes were justified, people started treating him like he deserved.
***** Because it's hilarious to see people censor us since they can't defend the views of their celebutante hero. Nice job flagging links to Sam Harris' blog to get the comment removed guys!
Sam's shameless self-promotion at the expense of Prof. Chomsky gracious nature to respond to emails is a low budget move to exploit Chomsky's prestige in the intellectual world for vulgar self-interest. Harris showed poor taste in making private correspondence public - Chomsky might rethink responding to emails, which he responds regularly, if he believes his goodwill in responding will be milked by self-important publicity seekers like Sam Harris.
Rich Grisham What are you talking about ? If you read the email exchange (which you clearly didn't) he very specifically asked Chomsky permission to share the email exchange publicly and Chomsky gave his express permission. Your post is proof that people like you don't give a shit about facts.
Flight Level 480 Yeah Prof Chomsky was apprehensive about it if read carefully, and it appears, to me, he was politely and subtly, which seems to be his nature, asking Harris to reconsider not to post these emails. There is a thing called reading between the lines.
Rich Grisham Then you are an idiot in the literal sense - I have read your comments carefully and I do understand precisely that you are wrong - "Harris showed poor taste in making private correspondence public " - Is wasn't private correspondence once Chomsky gave his explicit permission that the correspondence could be published.What is not to understand here ?
Michael’s voice is still so missed. It is this sort of clarity, that comes without for even a moment sacrificing the detail or complexity of any given issue that was and remains so impressive.
I love how towards the end of their exchange, Chomsky summarizes what they have been talking about, and just makes super-rational arguments about the way he deals with people's "intentions", and what does Harris say? He complains about being mistreated, and how he has "now lost hope that we can communicate effectively in this medium". Why? That was exactly the point in their discussion, where Chomsky was adressing his question in the most understandable, rational way. I couldn't believe what I was reading! What is actually wrong with this guy?
Raoul Borans According to anyone with a clue about it. He is routinely acknowledged to be the world's leading public intellectual, full stop. He's been an analyst and critic of U.S. foreign policy for the past fifty years and has written over a hundred books on the subject, all as well as doing his day job being 'the father of modern linguistics.' Outside the U.S. he is widely read and respected. Try using the internet to learn something rather using it as a platform for venting your ill - informed spleen.
Alasdair Church How about not using a forum of exchange of opinions to try and tell someone they can't have an opinion that differs from yours...douchebag.
Raoul Borans Alasdair Church You asked a question, he gave a good answer. He didn't say you couldn't have an opinion, he said your opinion was uninformed and he is right.
***** "Islamic violence", what a BS. There is no Christian, Islamic, Communist, blah blah violence. There is one violence and that is human violence with several Justifications. US is the main reason that Middle East is devastated right now. It backed dictators, crushed democratic governments, killed millions, funded fundamentalists and now cannot control the situation anymore.
I've been circling Sam Harris work for the last few years and the problems i have with him and his audience are articulated well here. Shame the host here has passed on. He was sharp. RIP.
When I was first discovering I was an atheist in my young 20s, I really liked Harris. Then I aged a bit, got a degree in political science, and become aware of his extremely problematic views on international security. His arrogance is astounding. He has no training, experience, or new ideas about the Middle East, but assumes he knows much better than one of the most brilliant academics in modern history. Harris is out of his depth. Look, the studies are in...Problems in the Middle East are far better explained by institutional and diplomatic factors than theology. For Harris, theology is the answer to everything -- simply because that's the only part of the topic he understands. He doesn't want to accept that terrorists are more motivated about the drones in their country than the religion they grow up with -- but that's what the people that actually study this for a living have concluded. And what does the guy with no credentials, credibility, or new ideas think we need to do to improve the situation? Well more bombs, support for Israel, and lectures about their religion of course....that will work...
If Noam Chomsky is supposed to be so brilliant and erudite then why does he get testy, defensive and evasive when having his positions challenged? If you talk to a real academic philosopher they enjoy the dialectic, argument, and will back up their positions. Chomsky's just an ideologue.
charlesvan13 Whatever minor irritation Chomsky may have felt did not come from having his position challenged, but from having to explain this very slowly to simpleton with delusions of grandeur.
Rob McCune No. I read the emails. Chomsky didn't explain his positions; he evaded any questions. Only two issues were brought up 1. the relevance of intentions in evaluating an action ethically, 2. the relative atrociousness of the 911 attack and the Al Shifa bombing. But absolutely nothing was clarified. I understand that Chomsky didn't like Harris because of what he wrote in End of Faith. But if you don't respect someone, then it's more appropriate to not respond, rather than continue to write petulant, evasive emails.
charlesvan13 Chomsky made his positions quite clear. What he didn't do was play Harris's games, the whole piece reeks of a false dichotomy that any moral difference in intentions necessarily means a profound difference. Harris tried to go down that path and corner Chomsky into concession after concession. But Chomsky was having none of it, and demolished Harris on his implications that U.S. foreign policy is a Pollyanna-esque exercise in pure benevolence.
Rob McCune Harris wasn't trying to argue that "US foreign policy is a pollyannesque exercise in benevolence. Didn't you notice that Harris agreed that the Al Shifa bombing was a scandal? The difference was that Harris didn't share Chomsky's absolute moral certainty in regard to that. And Chomsky took that as a personal attack. I'm only glad I read this fruitless exchange because the reactions I've read are so strange. I realize that Noam has many loyal fans--perhaps you. But I just feel his logic and reasoning are half-backed. And the Nazi analogy was grotesque. Even a naïve person knew their motives were sinister. I think it was silly of Harris to post this, considering how it went.
charlesvan13 Funny Harris didn't share the moral certainty of a man he claimed spread moral confusion. I'm not a Chomsky fan, nor have I read any of his books. From what I read he addressed the issues, kept on topic, and dealt with reality, none of which I can say for Harris. Chomsky was civil enough before Harris started whining about tone, I've seen it before and wilting under criticism seems to be one of his defensive tactics.
I am not a blanket Harris follower. But Noam lost a lot of my respect in that exchange. He was a real ass. Same could / should be said about Noam followers.
maninspired I've been a chomskyan for years, so much so that I've been ridiculed and called a chomskybot and a fanboy of his, and I still stand by much of what he has to offer. But I agree with you. Chomsky was belligerent. I am beginning to see all of his recent bouts with other intellectuals in a new light, such as the conflict with Zizek, with Lakoff, and many others. It's not that Chomsky is wrong necessarily, it's that he's intolerant of anyone trying to think independently of his "system of thought."
maninspired Notice how Chomsky and his followers don't like actual argument. As soon as Chomsky is questioned he gets defensive that someone would dare question his authority.
Summed up well: www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky I think many are missing the key point. Here we have two extremely intelligent people (anybody who says one or the other is "stupid" should go home) who could not come together to have a debate / discussion on topics which define our time.
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?” ― Mahatma Gandhi
***** I never said Gandhi was a hero. No matter who said this, it is a FACT: What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Simon Wood Now, who doesn't understand international politics? Do you really believe it is realistic that the nations of the world become pacifists (like Gandhi)? Or that it is even good? Should we have been pacifists when Nazi Germany expanded their borders? Should we remain pacifists if North Korea drops an atom bomb on another country? Pacifism is a noble pursuit who can serve a good purpose in some instances, but it is naive and immoral to use pacifism in all instances. For instance towards someone raping a small girl? Would you just ask him kindly to stop and turn away if he said no?
Arne Kristian Lindmo Nazi Germany claimed the moral high ground. North Korea claims the moral high ground. We claimed the moral high ground when we invaded Iraq. Every despot professes good intentions. Every policy - including those that lead to the rape of little girls - is based on good intentions. We professed good intentions when we ACTUALLY dropped atom bombs on Japan. This has nothing to do with pacifism. It's remarkable that so many Sam Harris disciples simply do not understand this.
OldBoy Listen to yourself. You are saying that everyone is claiming the moral high ground. So are every actor on the international stage a villain? From what you are saying no one is to be trusted, not even ourselves. I would call that a defeatist attitude which leaves no opportunities for building a better world. If we follow your logic we would be paralyzed and couldn't do anything. Take the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. I bet you would say that the Hutus had "good" intentions. Noone came to the rescue and up to a million people were slaughtered. I bet you also would criticise anyone actually coming to their rescue as having "good" intentions (but really not, and would blame them for getting involved in warfare).
Harris may have a naive view of US intentions and Chomsky maybe neglecting the importance of intentions but who knows what would have resulted from a respectful discussion. Like this video, these comments are beyond pathetic! Not one unbiased opinion in sight. Its very obvious to anyone reading this exchange that can think for themselves that no debate took place. Sam Harris tried to start one over the role that intention plays in foreign policy, using very simple thought experiments to demonstrate his point. It would appear Chomsky took some offense to this challenge as he is undeniably dismissive and accuses Harris of misrepresenting his view. Harris asks how he has misrepresented him numerous times, Chomsky doesn't explain, instead he ramps up the insults. Harris tries a few more times and fails to put the conversation back on track. Which is a shame as they had the chance to test and refine their views.
He does explain, you just need to read carefully. Harris said Chomsky doesn’t consider intentions when if you have ever read a Chomsky book, he does consider intentions. Chomsky just doesn’t say the US intentions are great because the US professes so, what he says is I don’t know, the intellectually honest position, but we can examine the actions and what he comes to is apathy, which he considers sometimes worse than purposefully killing. Based on the Al-Shifa incident that happened, there was a letter sent to Clinton from HRW where a guy named Kenneth Roth warned Clinton that there are children in the Al-Shifa facility and Clinton bombed it anyway.
Here's a solid idea DON'T DEBATE NOAM CHOMSKY (especially if you're this pseudo intellectual, erudite hack (who speaks like he's writing a paper in college and trying to impress his professor). Also, do not step in the ring with Muhammad Ali in 1967, do not try to play chess with Capablanca, etc.
I'm amazed at the number of people on here referring to Harris as an apologist for atrocity or a zealot himself. provide for me one example in which he does so.
+Nicholas D'Agostino Nice way to describe yourself, because that's exactly and preciesly his view. He's a text book follower of western/american exceptionism.
After viewing this and Harris' video I found and read the e-mail exchange. I might add, this ‘exchange’ was initiated and published by Harris. Chomsky, all along, commenting on the futility of the exchange but acquiescing to its publication, basically saying I don’t see the point but go ahead, ‘I won’t object.’ My take away was as follows: To use a vernacular much less polite than professor Chomsky, Sam Harris grabbed a stick and went poking around in a bear cave, and then cried like a trick when the bear pimp slapped him. Please excuse the indelicate and mixed metaphors. Two murderous actions are compared: one (by them, 911) was executed with every intention of killing as many people as possible, because ‘they hate us.’ The second, carried out by us (bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory) was based on accusations which fell apart upon minimal investigation (i.e. ‘they were making chemical weapons/or their precursors for terrorists.’) Their crime killed 3,000+. Our crime (and yes, under international law it was a crime) resulted in an estimate of tens of thousands of deaths by eliminating their only source for life sustaining medications. Harris argues that their crime was more evil because of intent, that is, they wanted as many victims as possible, while we didn’t intend to kill anyone. I see it as a distinction without much of a difference - in large part because it’s false. Both actions were crimes. One set of deaths resulting from insane, hateful, murderous, rage. The other set of deaths, were totally predictable - in fact Clinton aware of information provided by, among others, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch had to know they were practically assured - consequences of the bombing but he did it anyway because, again to use non flowery rhetoric, he just didn’t give a shit how many people would die. After all we’re only talking about a bunch of nameless, faceless Africans - right? So, to a reasonable observer, the distinction between intentions is one without much difference. One side did it with murderous intent (3,000+ dead), the other with callous disregard for guaranteed human suffering and loss of life (tens of thousands dead). And, Harris is arguing about who meant it vs., who really, really meant it. It’s almost the argument one would expect from a child. But, one may protest, we thought they were making chemical weapons for terrorists; the smoking gun - mushroom cloud argument that was laughable when Rice later used it. Well, a group of reporters who actually bothered to investigate - in very short order - found this to be false. Clinton had at his disposal the F.B.I., C.I.A., and N.S.A., but we’re expected to believe their investigative skills didn’t rise to the level of some curious journalists. I might add here, that Clinton has yet to produce any credible evidence for his chemical weapons claim. Couple that with the timing of the bombing of the Al-Shifa factory - right on the heels of attacks on U.S. embassies abroad - and one would have to be willfully blind to not question/suspect Clinton’s accusations and motives. In reading the e-mail exchange and contemplating the surrounding circumstances, i.e., who initiated and then published it, I can’t help drawing the analogy of a young gunslinger trying to up his street-cred by taking on the ‘king of the hill.’ In my opinion he failed miserably - smoking holes everywhere.
+Sophia V a lot of dislikes because Chomsky was a butt hurt little baby. When harris offered him the chance to openly discuss the issues the response was to attack harris and assume him as some sort of confused ideologue. Further when they corresponded by email, Chomsky appeared to believe harris in capable of answering a question, he would not let the issue drop. If you are willing to rise for a second above Chomsky's unfounded moral reverse Machiavellianism, then you see this was a debate about how the left is fractured and Noam's loony socialists have not got the ability to put it back together again the way they want. He could not handle someone with intelligence that would take his morals musings back to the drawing board for a good review. P.S It seriously scares you that people take interest in a neuro-biologist who advocates for people to take up meditation? Grow up, nazis are not around every corner.
+Sophia V Nah he is misrepresenting an lying about Sam Harris (PBUH). Sam Harris is God on Earth and anyone who disagrees is a liar Muslim-apologist regressive.
Because Sam makes low IQed American warmongers feel good about themselves. There's a movement of truth hitting the USA, that America is the real terrorist of the world, so patriotic Americans run to Sam to get spooned lies straight from the Pentagon. Sam is like prozac for many people that can't handle the truth.
So many words used incorrectly. So many of the views of a career academic misrepresented. Wait, i know who you are like. Read much Noam Chomsky before posting your comment?
i read the emails. Chomsky came off as way too combative and i think that threw Sam Harris off a little.... he didn't quite know how to engage him in a philosophical discussion. I really dont think Chomsky was up for it from the get go.
tiara n comparing people who agree with sam harris to a bunch of sheeps following a ''guru'' is just stupid though. sam harris supporters agree with his arguments and they can give you reasons to why they believe hes correct.... a sheep following a guru usually would not.
tiara n The difference between SH and NC is that the first one does not have any problem with his own side's violence , he considers his own side good-intended, but doesn't think the other side has any good intentions, he also thinks that you can distort reality with "philosophical discussions" of nonsense scenarios, while ignoring all the facts on the ground that of course makes his "arguments" sound childish. But you know if you throw some random good words like "philosophical discussion" that makes you a "reasonable person", no matter how genocidal you are. SH is everything that is wrong with the West: narcissistic, without any fair view of the "other", who thinks he is morally wealthy than the other side, never mind his own side literally destroyed Middle East in the past few decades. NC's calling him out for his hypocrisy and genocidal apologizing, made him complain of NC being mean to him. And you know what, you are just another supporter of genocide. When the white people were conquering Africa and India, they have same kind of rationalization with "we are superior" argument. You can have your own delusion of course, you can even share SH's delusion, but that would be much better to live in the real world.
AmirShapour Bizar no i think you are over simplifying what hes saying. hes trying to have an honest discussion about morality which i think is pretty interesting. i agree with him that there is a moral difference when a terrorist purposely targets innocent people to cause maximum terror as opposed to the US military causing innocent civilian deaths due to reckless actions or simply by not caring. while i think this is an interesting philosophical discussion to have... it does not help much with foreign policy. yes there is different intent there... however the end results are not much different... you still end up with many deaths caused by selfish and reckless behavior. but to over simplify sam harris and make him out to be some war mongering muslim hater goes too far. i've listened to a lot of his talks and discussions... and he usually is careful to explain the context of the discussion.
Ann Nguyen We tortured innocent people, we knew were innocent. Sam Harris defended torture, he defended profiling, he defended Cruz’s Muslim ban. Harris is an intellectual coward because he back tracks from these controversial statements when faced with substantive criticism. He is an apologist for Western Supremacy.
Harris embarrasses himself? The opposite is true. I read the whole transcript of the e-mail exchange, and Chomsky came across as defensive, rude and almost fearful of an open debate - with good reason, as this is one of the few areas where he's very weak. I've always admired Chomsky for many reasons, but we shouldn't lionise him. The exchange with Harris proves he's far from infallible, as none of us are.
+JoeStunner Chomsky was rude (I don't know about defensive) due to Sam Harris insisting that Chomsky takes position x when Chomsky told him multiple times in the exchange (not to mention in many of the books he has written) that he takes position y. Debate is futile with a person who insists that you hold a position that you do not despite being told that the opposite is true multiple times. All Sam Harris had to say was that Chomsky refuses to consider intentions as a moral question and that was it, Chomsky was brandished with the hot iron. It's literally what happens to Harris repeatedly (although I do think he is a terrible communicator of ideas). So, no matter how many times Chomsky displayed that we can never actually be certain of the intentions of actors and that what are considered 'good' intentions are wholly subjective anyway, Harris was completely blind to it. It's incredible that you read the exchange and didn't pick up on even the slightest hint of that.
This was such a stark demonstration of Harris' myopia. Everyone should read the entire exchange. Amazing to me that Harris released something that damns him so flagrantly.
AgtDaleChomsky He fills the middle with a long diatribe that should have been it's own blog post to try to poison the well for the rest of the conversation. Don't under estimate the ability of his followers to be led around by the nose by their "thought leader."
KnivesOfTheRound Further evidence of the irony that Sam Harris's followers view him as a Guru. Harris's followers seem to be even more ignorant than he is.
the issue I find very problematic, and I fell into this trap, is that atheists will go to the lengths of the earth to defend the likes of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins etc, to the point of where it almost becomes comical. How does that make us any different than those fanatics who would die for irrational beliefs?
Harris lost me a few years ago. Yes indeed - Harris has little knowledge about US foreign policy. His "thought experiments" are becoming (becoming is being generous) mostly absurd. Why he thinks he is even close to Chomsky on foreign policy is a mystery to me.
Jesus Christ, dude I'm not a "fan" of Sam Harris. I enjoyed his book on meditation and I do side a little more with Bill Maher and him over Reza Aslan and Ben Affleck on the Muslim issue but that's beside the point. I personally didn't see in that email where Sam Harris is misrepresenting Noam Chomsky's views (AKA: being intellectually dishonest) - point that out in the email. I read it and I didn't see it. Just so you know I'm probably more of a "fan" of Chomsky than Harris - Chomsky has seriously shaped my worldviews since I was young.
eas leeps viewing Iraq's invasion as strategic rather than moral failure is. In other words, violence is not bad if it is done by us, it is only bad when it is done by a religion and in particular Islam. In the case of our violence, we can rationalize it easily by all sort of "intent rhetoric". But you know, the other side has no "noble intent". When you lose intellectual fairness in applying your standards to one of the sides of the argument, you barely are a thinker, let alone a "critical thinker".
I often hear the claim that Sam Harris (or any of the so called "new atheists" for that matter) is viewed as a guru, where his followers are just 'uncapable of thinking for themselves and thus "outsource" their thinking to Harris'. One could argue that Chomsky is a guru to his followers, Dawkins to his, Hedges to his etc. etc. This argument does not hold ground unless you got actual data to support it. There are many good points from both "Chomskyites" and the "Harrisites" but how to conduct a conversation properly is something that seems to get more and more lost on the former. One example could be the title of this video. Articles on Salon, Alternet, as well as titles on TyT videos seem to be going more and more in the direction of a certain right-wing news org in both headlines and the level of bias/smearing etc in it's content. I also see a trend among certain liberals where it has become quite popular in internet discussions linking to an article supporting one's view instead of explaining one's own argument. Which could suggest that it is not the "Harrisites" who are the worst at outsourcing their thinking to their "masters". The ultra focus on "Western politics as the only factor" can restrain critical thought just as much as a religious doctrine. I believe global warming is happening because the experts in that scientific field are showing us the evidence supporting the claim; I meet people who make the claim but appearantly only because they want to "blame the US / the west" for it, knowing very little about the science itself. The ends do not always justify the means. PS! It must be hilariously amusing for the christian-right wingers to see liberal atheists focusing (most of) their attention fighting eachother. "The Judean peoples front? SPLITTERS!" :)
I've read two of Sam Harris's books, listened to the few podcasts that he has, listened to all four of his podcasts on the Joe Rogan Experience, listened to several debates and conversations of his on UA-cam, and read some of the articles on his site. I have NEVER heard him say he was in support of the Iraq War.
'Agree or disagree - Noam Chomsky is just at a different level'? Well okay then, disagree. I didn't read their entire correspondence in detail, but from what I saw, Chomsky came across as unfriendly, overly sensitive and arrogant, while Harris was trying to have a productive discussion in a public forum.
I've seldom seen an ass kicking of this magnitude. The only reason I can think of why Sam Harris wanted to publish the emails is that he might have feared that the emails would leak out at a later stage. I almost felt bad for him. Almost.
OldBoy I think you overestimate Sam Harris' fanbase and underestimate their ability to be led around by the nose. When Harris published the emails he stuck a long diatribe right in the middle before the real as kicking began to essentially break up the conversation, strawman Chomsky, and poison the well for the rest of the exchange.
OldBoy " The only reason I can think of why Sam Harris wanted to publish the emails is that he might have feared that the emails would leak out at a later stage. I almost felt bad for him." He asks Chomsky in the mail exchange permission to publish the exchange. It's clear Noam had no intention leaking documents nor has he ever done so with private email, he says plainly "I don’t circulate private correspondence without authorization". This is more of a condemnation of the character of Chomsky than it is Sam if this is the only conclusion you can come to...
Chino Gambino Chomsky fanboys are no different William Lane Craig fanboys after when Harris trounced him. They'll still come out and say that day was night just to claim victory and Chomsky disciples will eat it up like dog vomit, especially professional Harris trolls like OldBoy who has quite the reputation on Twitter.
Yourinquirer I don't understand it personally. Do any of us have a dog in this race? Sam doesn't claim victory and Noam is similarly indifferent to the impasse, yet these tribes come out of the woodwork to defend a ground that was never contested regardless. I get more annoyed at these contrived accusations people invent when pubic intellectuals are open to having their views torn to shreds in good faith. This guy pretty much assumes Noam is a massive cunt who would 'leak' emails for public acclaim and Harris is such a cynical bastard he would read Noam to be that way inclined as well. The theory makes little sense either way yet gains 8 upvotes.
You are free to downplay the email exchange, you can call me a troll, accuse me of nonsense, or - ironically - spend your time stalking me over the internet like a bunch of fan boys, just to tell me how unimportant this is (of course, I'm assuming that your time is important). But know that it's ignoramuses like yourselves, who give a dangerous man such as Harris main stream credibility. Sam Harris is a man who is playing with fire that will end up burning others. It's exchanges like this that reveal his true nature. They reveal how ill-thought-out his positions as a so-called intellectual are. Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to see it. So, keep sucking Harris' dick, as he provides some pseudo-intellectual justification for your (increasingly) thinly veiled bigotry. But please don't claim the high ground while you're doing it.
Sam Harris was nobody. He married an editor and used some connections to get known for jotting down some thoughts on religion we all had in middle school. He thinks he bridged the is/ought gap but hmmm, the world is still the same. Why would that be? His views on politics are not just misguided- they are stupid. I didn't like Hitchens when he turned either but I would have never called him stupid.
Harris continually likes to evoke his kinship with Hitchens now that the man is gone, despite the fact that all he shared with that man was his one bigoted weakness intellectually.
Wow, michael brooks really breaks it down perfectly. Awesome clarity. That said, sam harris is actually very insightful when he sticks to science, which is his expertise. When he starts talking politics i can only cringe.
I've always loved Harris' books and his debate style. His systematic dismantling of the artifice of "reasonable" religious faith is the best I've read. My opinion is that he's brilliant, but on a few issues I've increasingly come to think he misses the mark, or worse. 1. I didn't think his explanations for refusing to entertain criticism of Israel are adequate. 2. I'm unconvinced about the genetic basis of faith that he espouses. 3. He crosses over into politics too much to be talking around the biggest issue of our time: wealth and income inequality. Sam Harris has always enjoyed a prominent spot among my personal favorite public intellectuals. I'm beginning to think I'll have to demote him or omit him entirely. Chomsky has some holes too. I've never felt he's offered any compelling or realistic alternatives to a good form of capitalist democracy. However, in Chomsky's case, his entire body of work and ideas about consistently forcing authority to justify itself have undeniable merit. Not that you care, but Chomsky remains in my top 10, just in the bottom half of it. In the end, you couldn't go very far wrong to read everything both men have written, and then draw your own conclusions. Skip Chomsky on linguistics if you must.
This was trash. Plain and simple. should have expected it given the length alone. if sams going to embarrass himself maybe include him doing it aye??? and he didn't....you just still think you are right. Not the same thing at all. intentions matter what are these intentions you speak of? nope, no such thing, only measurement of harm. noam wouldn't make it to the level of a court system a few hundred years back lol intent matters. intent is not an excuse thouugh which seems to be what many here think Sams position is....it's more like the guys deliberately trying to kick you is worse than the guy that is trying to walk and kicked you by accident. Noam sees these as equal. the important thing for those that have commented is they BOTH see BOTH SITUATIONS AS BAD. Honestly, i was hoping to see if noams views had made progress since i last checked and my god was i soo much more disappointed than i expected. Not only not forward..but backwards For the record, I still stand with noam against intervention wars
Sam Harris arguments are the same of ethnocentric colonialism, perfected by the British, who led to the invention of anthropology in order to rationalized imperialism. Much of that extremism come from the constant attack of powerful countries imposing their will by force.
He was trying to have a conversation with the man. The only embarrassment is Harris' optimism about the possibility of having a polite discussion with Chomsky.
If Harris doesn't understand politics, it'd be easy for Chomsky to mop the floor with Harris in a debate, no? Chomsky could 'break the spell' of Harris's ideas on peoples brains. Then, why won't he do it?
This is the smuggest podcaster I have ever seen. I have to assume he spends his days fighting for women in Pakistan. Funny that Chomsky will debate Alex Jones and Bill Buckley and just about any other right winger, but not a left winger who disagrees with him in a single space. I still don't get where these guys get Harris's views from: he has NEVER supported the Iraq war. Refusing to indulge in masochism does not make you pro-war. It's also odd that this clown jabs him for not "standing with moderates" when the guy is writing a book with Majaad Newaz--who has done more to fight radicalism than any other major public figure I know.
1:01 "I don't read UA-cam comments." Translation: I wouldn't like my echo-chamber to be diluted with subversive thoughts and idea's that make me uncomfortable.
This is probably the best assessment of the Harris/Chomsky non-debate I have heard or read. I think Harris chased him because of that youtube clip where Chomsky is asked about the new atheist movement being led by Hitchens and Harris. He states that they are pro-war and buying into the "state religion". Of course this comment was more about Hitchens than Harris, so Harris should have let it slide.
Islamophobia is the most idiotic buzzword ever invented. There is absolutely nothing "irrational" about a concern about Islam. And "thin-skinned"? For pointing out, quite accurately, that people can't debate him directly and depend upon straw-manning his views? Yet, jihadist apologists like yourself scream "Racist!" and "Bigot!" every time a perfectly legitimate critique of Islam is made? Right..
Just because Harris has an essentially apologist approach to US foreign policy shouldn't turn you off about him. I think he, like Bill Maher, has allowed his anti-religious dogma (with a specific focus on Islam) to infect his otherwise sophisticated mode of analysis about shit. But we all have our own idiosyncrasies that may undermine all our other awesomeness, which it shouldn't. Harris is a dope intellectual but with some blindspots.
Avi Gindratt Avi i listened to his ''Why I don't criticize Israel'' and it was painful to listen to it was so bad. If he stuck to criticizing religion and left out the politics he would do a lot better. I actually thought he did a good job against Aslan when he did that.
Cy5208 There was nothing bad at all about his talk about Israel. It was absolutely brilliant, he brought forward valid criticism toward the state of Israel, the settlers and the conflict in general, but he also brought you that nasty, chewy and uncomfortable fact about Hamas and the palestinians that you people who just blindly criticize Israel conveniently and always ignore. Never mind the fact that FOX has been spinning the narrative over and over and given it a bad name: he was completely right about what he said about Hamas. And the situation in which these two people are in is extremely complicated and CAN'T be viewed as black and white. It is the case that the majority of palestinians are highly anti-semitic and that on the top of Hamas's priority list is destroying Israel and killing all jews in the world. That's just a fact. Does this mean the israelis should undertake extremely dangerous and lifethreatening raids in one of the world's most crowded places? Obviously not, but then again, when you say that, you are missing the clear nuances that differ the israeli government and the palestinian leadership: the israelis install super-safe defense networks, hamas forces people out in the street and use women and children as their human shields.
Batman _ I agree with Cy52..., and I don't blindly criticize Israel. I can hold two thoughts in my head at the same time. Hamas is a horrendous terrorist organization bent on racism and religious violence, too. "It is the case that the majority of palestinians are highly anti-semitic and that on the top of Hamas's priority list is destroying Israel and killing all jews in the world."--true. And you can say similar (though not exactly equal) things about Israel. Are the belligerents different? Not really. They're just not the same: One side is Arab, the other Israeli; one is the occupying force, the other the occupied; one has nukes, the other makeshift rockets. Frankly, using human shields, while deplorable, does not excuse shooting at them, which is an international crime, btw. And 'super safe' missiles and bombs n artillery--isn't that a bit of an oxymoron if you're the target?
Batman _ Sorry 4 the delay I didnt get the msg I just suggest you talk take the time to see what B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence have had to say including the recent interviews with IDF soldiers about firing indiscriminately into civilian areas before you comment further.Or the UN report about Israel firing at their compounds. & sure as an ideological stance Hamas wants to wipe out the Zionist state but they have also said they will -as part of a democratically elected government -deal with them as political necessity. Nor do you mention anything about the continued blockade, nor the continued theft of Palestinian land. With due respect Harris’ critique is so lopsided to be farcical. Norman Finklestein would wipe the floor with Sam and make Chomsky look gentle in comparison.
That's pretty hilarious considering that attacking Seder in such a vague way on a thread beneath a video of Brooks is the definition of using the STRAW MAN argument. You should read your stuff before posting. Unless you did and are just that unaware.
Both Chomsky and Harris ended up embarrassing themselves. Neither were capable of having a coherent conversation, though Harris seemed to try at least. The truth is that Harris wanted to talk about ethics, and Chomsky wanted to show that Harris had misrepresented his views, then leave. Harris didn't want to get caught up in trading accusations, so tried to use analogies to get to ethical bedrock, to establish some basic agreement before reconsidering the case of the pharmaceutical plant. Chomsky came off as dismissive and grumpy. Harris came off as evasive and confused. If two smart guys like this can't communicate, what hope is there for the rest of us?
What I read was Sam Harris trying to engage in conversation with Noam Chomsky, while Chomsky was trying to do his best to dissuade Harris from having said conversation. Chomsky seemed to be going out of his way to deliver low blows while Harris kept coming back with discussion points. I would agree that it was silly of Harris to pursue the exchange with someone who clearly doesn't want to speak with him, but I can't say I agree that Harris "Embarasses himself". If anything, what I got out of the conversation is that Chomsky is a bit of a jerk. This video and the comments attached to it stink of Fanboyism which I must say underlines my impressions of the discussion ; Harris wanted a conversation, Chomsky wanted a battle. I was very disappointed by the discussion. Insulting someone does nothing to show him wrong and, more importantly, does nothing to advance the conversation.
MagicofAramis No, Harris got a discussion, one where he got more than he bargained for. Chomsky kept on topic and engaged the issue substantively and didn't get derailed by Harris or play into his rinky dink thought experiments he got from Playdoh's Republic. What Harris did, as he often does, was cry fowl to try and wriggle out of a debate he knows he's not winning while at the same time eliciting sympathy.
I suppose we'll have to disagree, but I'd like to use your comment to highlight the criticism I was making of Chomsky and of the comments on this video if I may. You are accusing Harris of using "Rinky Dink thought experiments he got from Playdoh's Republic". Now I assume you are aware that the Playdoh Republic is not in fact a geographical location on this planet. It is an expression you are using to demean Harris without actually having to address any substance. Your approach was the one Chomsky used. What is gained from this approach? Could you not instead address the substance of these thought experiments you think are so juvenile? There is nothing wrong with calling foul (Yes, foul, a "Fowl" is a bird) when a foul has actually occurred. Just like I called you out for using "playdoh republic thought experiment" and believing you had successfully dismantled Harris' case, Harris called Chomsky out more than once for resorting to condescending language and calling points "Silly" instead of addressing them.
MagicofAramis why would you address thought experiments that were totally irrelevant to the subject? Remember Chomsky asked of clintons' bombing of sudan and he asked harris what would we do if people like alqaeda did the same thing to us. Sam did not answer the question. What he did was change the subject to show the difference between terrorism and collateral damage. That is not chomskys' point. His point is simple. It is that human values are universal. If it is wrong for you then it is also wrong for me. So if it is not moral for alqaeda to bomb half of US pharmaceutical facility and probably kill millions of people because they had intelligence that America is producing chemical weapons (like white phosphorus) and that they might use against them (like they did in fallugah). Then it is wrong for us too. Sam Harris never responded to that. Actually I didnt get the vibe that Sam even thought it was a war crime which even by his scenario it would be. But by the way I totally agree that chomsky made himself look like an asshole and I was incredibly disappointed in the way he talked to sam harris like he was a 15 year old kid. But that does not change the fact that chomskys' point still stands despite the fact that he made himself look like a douche-bag.
Thank you for your thought provoking response. My impression of the particular passage you are speaking of was that their disagreement boiled down to whether or not the US government knew these were pharmaceutical labs. It seems reasonable to concede that Chomsky is probably better informed on the matter and is thus more likely to be correct, but the main point is that assuming they end up recognizing they disagree on the specific example, the question can be reformulated (for example in the way you phrased it) and answered. But instead, we got one guy trying to punch the other while the other was whining "Stop punching me!" instead of just walking away. I'm fairly certain Sam Harris does not think we should be targeting the People's medical supplies, by the way. Even if we are at war with that people's government.
MagicofAramis They knew Al Shifa was a pharmaceutical plant. That's was no secret. The cia and people in the Clinton administration thought it was being used to manufacture chemicals for chemical weapons, or precursors. The cia found EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid a VX nerve agent precursor. They got some other tips, which may or may not have been accurate. Both agreed that the missile attack was unwarranted, although they both are wrong that there was no evidence--just probably not nearly enough. Harris wanted to discuss with Chomsky why he equated this attack with 911. This equivalence implied that intent was little relevant to ethics. But that was an issue that Chomsky really didn't want to discuss. I think Chomsky has some kind of borderline personality disorder, where other people's motives are suspect and wicked.
I'd be interested in Brook's disagreements with Chomsky. It's hard to imagine other than he views our military ventures with slightly less ominous motives or purpose.
8.20 - hilarious "Harris is not on the same level as Chomsky and its embarrassing" - No, whats embarrassing is that an opportunity for further public discussion has been lost. Wow, I have not watched this liberal channel before. Not impressed.
I fucking love this video. Thank you for adding more context, more back up, and I admit more articulation than Ive been able to muster about Sam Harris. I've argued against Sam Harris for basically all the reasons you mention. Harris is smug and very narrow-minded and because of his easy sort of tone, his wordiness, and even-tempered appearance he fools people into believing he is an unquestionable authority on foreign relations and Muslim mentality (as if there is a singular mentality). He vastly over-simplifies and gets away with it most times, and it drives me crazy when I listen to him.
I wish Chomsky would do this more with these pseudo intellectual Libertarians (american libertarians) who think they've stumbled on to something. It sucks that Noam has to do most of the work, hopefully Yanis and him can team up and educate the masses. I like a lot of sam harris's ideas not this one but he's mostly on our side.
What Sam Seder totally discounts is the reality of the words in the Koran. In this whole rant he doesn't even mention it. And he slams Ayyan Hirsi Ali of all people, someone who has actually lived as a Muslim. I'd love to see Sam Seder actually go up against Sam Harris. Ali's experience is real, and her perspective is her own. She is not a puppet of the West. That is incredibly cynical.
How fucking depressing is this? This is the first time i hear about Michael Brooks, through this video literally... then i started watching other videos of his and i was very impressed by his views. So i went to Twitter to follow him, and found out he died a week ago 😔. Rest in peace
💔 You can be glad you found his work though
I'm experiencing the same thing, except almost a year after he passed away. So sad.
I started following him 4 months before he passed away. A really huge lost
Same
Sad indeed. Such a great guy to listen to
Do not fuck with Chomsky.
***** If you do you'll get stompskyd
Rob McCune ZING!!! :)
Harris wrecked him. Chomsky reduced himself to childish insults
Chomsky is a darling of the pseudo intellectual left which permeates university campuses around America. He's a lightweight compared to Sam Harris
@@marcomeme4875other way around.
Just read Harris' email correspondence with Chomsky. Harris repeatedly asking Chomsky questions about "intentions" like he is a first year philosophy student studying Ethics 101.
@XxDanSoloxX
That's a lie. He listed many examples not just plain old numbers, such as the bombing of the hospital in Kunduz.
Right, that was the problem...Noam Chomsky couldnt grasp basic ethical philosphy.
@@mikedematteo4672 Chomsky just said it was irrelevant because nobody's making an abstract moral comparison between the US and al Qaeda, outside of a philosophy seminar real world impact is all that matters.
@@GiantSandles Intentions are the basis of real world impact. They tell you what someone will do in the future. If the US did not in fact intend to destroy the pharmaceutical plant and kill thousands of people, it’s unlikely they will do such a thing again. If it was their intention, they would likely continue to commit such atrocities and thereby have a negative real world impact. It actually matters what someone’s intention is, not just the consequence of their action. There’s a reason manslaughter and murder don’t carry the same sentencing.
@@motorhead48067 They’re also virtually impossible to discern so it seems irrelevant. Also if someone undertakes an action which they know could or is even likely to have a negative effect and it has that effect, whether or not they necessarily *intended* to have that effect seems kind of beside the point. The difference between them and someone who specifically wanted that outcome isn’t *that* important to me
"She's not a civil rights activist on the ground. She's not someone who's working for the rights of women in Pakistan. She's not a reformer in Iran."
Perfectly stated about Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
If you're going to play that game, then what are your bona fides? You do know that she would probably be kidnapped / killed in Pakistan or Iraq don't you?
Manny Lenz Malala Yousafzai was willing to put her life on the line to help the cause of reform as are the many women who protest the misogyny in Saudi Arabia by simply driving, in contrast Hirsi Ali has made a lucrative career of palling with neocons and european fascists.
What you really mean is you don't like her because she is right wing. Next you'll be telling me the only true activist is a dead one.
Manny Lenz What do call the kind of activist who tells people what they want to hear and supports the status quo?
A muslim apologist?
I'm always amazed that someone like Harris is as popular as he is. Having read the exchange, Harris comes off as smug and intellectually dishonest. He's like an atheist version of Sean Hannity.
Phlebas You should watch some of his debates with religious apologists. Sam Harris gets plenty of things wrong (as everyone does) but he's one of the most articulate and well-read public intellectuals I've ever listened to.
Jacob Jepson Because nothing says "intellectual" like supporting racial profiling and torture.
Jacob Jepson Sam Harris should really stick to neuroscience, his position on religion is what informs his view of politics.
Jacob Jepson
I've seen clips of Sam Harris, and yes; he occasionally makes good points and words them well, but I can think of a tonne of people who are far more interesting to listen to than him. And the issue isn't so much that he gets things wrong - it's the things that he's wrong about. These aren't exactly minor issues that one can just ignore; he's essentially trying to give a secular liberal spin to sociopathic neoconservative ideas, so it makes it very hard for me to respect the guy in any way.
Edit: Just to add, for someone who often talks about morality... hell, he wrote a book on it... his understanding of the subject matter seems pretty shallow.
Purple Stoner Midget™ Nothing says "uncomprehending Sam Harris's positions" like what you've just stated.
Sam Harris' whole point is to to make you understand that "they" are barbaric, dangerous and savage; we are not. So whatever evil deeds we do, it is never as bad as theirs, because we have the moral high ground. That is the substrate which his entire reasoning relies upon. In other words, he looks at the world though the "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" lens... This made me puke so hard!
Also known as American exceptionalism.
@@israelsrealm also known as a secular religion of worshipping the state, same concept as nacism or any supremacist ideology
Sam Harris is not capable of understanding Chomsky's argumentation.
Coos Oorlog Chomsky doesn't make argumentation.He and his sycophants all just jump to the false argument that he's the authority. Why do you think he gets testy when someone questions him on a transparent issue, like the value of intent in morality.
charlesvan13 You Harris's acolytes really have no shame. When your brothers and sisters are killed by bombs you don't give a damn about "intention". Plus there is no evidence whatsoever that the stated intention equals real intention.
One thing that Harris can do, but won't is to stick to his own (even though stupid) intellectual standards. Example: Hezbollah attacked Israel because of a noble cause which is occupation of Lebanon. Is that okay with Sam then? how about Hamas that attacked Israel for a noble cause which is freeing Palestine, does he use his "thought experiment" in this direction? no! of course not. It is only reserved for his own side.
States don't have intentions. States are not human beings.
+AmirShapour Bizar Hezbollah attacked Israel because of a noble cause. LOOOOOOOOL
+charlesvan13 actually he did argue a lot and he didn't "get testy" when asked about the value of intentions. He pointed Harris to specific parts of texts of his own where he had already adressed this subject and where Harris' arguments were already torn to shreds years before he even wrote The End of Faith. Then he pressured Harris to withdraw his comments that Chomsky had ignored the value of intentions, since he had just proven by his own citations that he did not ignore it and had instead adressed it exhaustively in previous work.
Instead of recognizing his error, Harris just kept moving on to other examples or kept complaining about Chomsky's tone instead. The other thing that kept coming back was Harris saying "I'm still confused about your position on intentions". Either the guy can't read or he's a bit simple minded. I think it's a little bit of both. Harris is so used of throwing around words for which he doesn't really grasp the meaning that when he reads such words he just seems to glide over and move on as if they weren't there. And then he just repeats that he doesn't understand.
Yet, despite his own admission of failing to understand Chomsky's points, that hasn't stopped him from keeping the charge.
I mean you reach out to someone because you claim to want to understand their view. They explain it to you. You recognize that you don't really understand their point. Instead of just thinking to himself "well... I ought to spend more time understanding it and won't adress this person's view until I do", he thinks "well, I'm confused about his position, therefore I will keep talking publicly about this person's position exactly as if I had never spoken to him".
That this guy still has fans after this e-mail exchange is proof enough that his followers are just that : followers. A bunch of sheeps who will take Harris' side no matter what he says or how stupid he gets.
"Smug, self satisfied and incredibly misinformed audience". That's the best description I've ever heard of Sam Harris' fans.
I bet u will give no specifics, u type never do....because u cant
BriansWrld What do you disagree with about Sam?
Peterthesneakybastard , I would like to answer this one , because he’s a bigot hate monger and he’s misleading people , don’t believe me ? Let me show you ,I am Muslim and I swear I love humanity and when I hear ppl like Sam talk it really bothers me that he is misleading many ppl , I challenge you or anyone in the whole world specially mr Sam , point out just 1 verse which goes against humanity as a whole I will become an atheist immediately , no interpretation of anyone open up the book and point out a single verse which goes against humanity as a whole , is there anyone who will take up the challenge ?????
Well said. I would also say: they put too much emphasis on IQ, all while being part of the overlap existing in between those pesky "races".
I recently had an "argument" with some Harris fanboys on youtube (already a mistake) which just devolved to petty insults about my appearance but I find that rather common with the more obsessive of his fanboys. A significant chunk of them seem to range in age from the hate-their-religious-parents 15 to the insufferable think they know everything college sophomore. Harris is part of their identity so they can't stand criticism of him because it means criticism of them.
Ronin Dave Well that makes sense. Harris can't take any criticism.
Ronin Dave What also pisses me off is how when you point out that he supports torture and racial profiling they always say "You took him out of context 11!!!!!11!!!" or some stupid shit like that.
Ronin Dave When you have finished name calling Harris 'fans' for name calling....
Then maybe you can get back to your studies or you do realise you won't graduate.
chris lacock it's not about name calling but rather their inability to handle criticism of their guru Harris.
Ronin Dave Appeal to Ridicule Fallacy.
Fail.
The reason Ayaan Hirsi Ali isn't living in Pakistan fighting for progressive values and women's rights is because her life is legitimately in danger from Muslim extremists.
Does that refute her irrational views of US foreign policy
Matthew D exactly
This is easily the best summary of Sam Harris I've ever heard.
***** Nah. There are moderate strains of Islam just as there are of every other religion. More importantly, you have to be autistic to think that denouncing the entirety of Islam (which is interwoven into the ancient culture of billions of people) will ever be productive.
Well, we disagree. You seem like an obsessed anti-refugee Islamophobe so I don't see us making much progress.
Look at the number of Westerners who support Israel and bombing campaigns that have killed thousands of Muslims in recent decades. Every time Israel and Palestine clash, the death tolls are always 10:1 or 100:1. Many Muslims view themselves as the oppressed parties and suicide bombing / jihad as their only tools of reprisal. Are the pro-Israel Westerners the radicals? What about the majority of Americans who supported the Iraq War, which has killed hundreds of thousands? And you're wagging your finger over suicide bombers?
Anyway, you are obviously arguing with a strawman and not worth the time. Islam can and has changed, as anybody with Muslim friends can attest. I'm certainly not worried about them cutting my head off or blowing me up.
This description of Harris and his audience is so accurate and well articulated. This is the first video I've ever seen from this guy and he nailed it. I wonder if he does live debates.
suejak1 Trust me, most of us westerners aren’t pro-Israel in fact a lot of us simply hate Israel for a lot what they did to America as well. I say this as a white American myself.
@@PegasusTenma1 dude I agree with you one hundred percent ! I support a two state solution
Noam Chomsky always discusses reality, whereas Sam Harris always indulges in hypothetical arguments.
It is absolutely MIND BOGGLING that a man who holds intentions over REALITY can be regarded as an intellectual!!!! Have I stepped in to the Twilight Zone?!
Even at that Chomsky's view isn't that US foreign policy is to be judged without reference to intention, it's that the choices made are determined by corporate interests. So the value judgement of the political decisions that go along with that are based on preserving a particular type of internationalist capitalist economy because that is supposedly the "right" thing.
One thing that Harris can do, but won't is to stick to his own (even though stupid) intellectual standards. Example: Hezbollah attacked Israel because of a noble cause which is occupation of Lebanon. Is that okay with Sam then? how about Hamas that attacked Israel for a noble cause which is freeing Palestine, does he use his "thought experiment" in this direction? no! of course not. It is only reserved for his own side.
I love when the likes finally catch up and surpass the dislikes in a IDW related video!
We've come far
Excellent analysis!
Chomsky = 1
Harris = 0
Sam Harris is a polite debater and Chomsky appeared rude and threatened.
***** Champsky was never a polite debater. It is a matter of life and death, and he does not suffer fools gladly. This is not the high school debating team.
***** Agreed. Personally, I think it's a lot to do with Chomsky's age, not to be rude to him, but he seems to have become a bit more cantankerous than earlier in life. However, I agree with the thrust of his argument over Harris'.
***** No. you don't get the point. Sam's talking about a supposed scenario in Happyland. Like in that interview when a creationist tackled AronRa on the topic of the Big Bang instead of evolution, knowing full well that the topic is over his head. If he wants to debate on philosophical matters, why send the letter to Chomsky? Why not Slavoj Zizek or Daniel Dennett or some other self proclaimed atheist philosopher?
_Hey Socrates, my car won't start and I have a malignant tumor on my forehead. What should I do?_
He used typical religious apologist tactics.
Both Slavoj Žižek and Daniel Dennet are bona fide philosophers.
Dennet, for example, has been in the field for half a century with a PhD from Oxford, and his atheism is irrelevant to that.
There was no self-proclamation involved.
TechnocraticBushman
Sorry, I should've been clearer - I don't disagree with most of what you were saying, only that Dennet and Žižek are self-proclaimed philosophers - they're credible and authentic.
I like Sam Harris, but I read the exchange and found it funny that Haris himself admitted that Chomsky was "mopping the floor with him." But you can really tell from the exchange that Chomsky is just writing what he thinks. But Harris all the time is putting some kind of public show like he wants to look good or something. Chomsky has the art of just telling things as they are. But Sam Harris would probably make a better politician.
thought2007 "I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon-believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me-but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you."
Yes, that's exactly what "Haris himself admitted". Just admit you skimmed this exchange, I would hazard no one was bored enough to read the whole thing; nothing of value was discussed.
Chino Gambino Well I read the exchange in full and Chomsky repeatedly asks for evidence of how he failed to fully explain his moral position on the Sudan Drug Factory bombing by Clinton. It obvious that Harris couldn't provide any evidence that Chomsky believed what Harris alleged he did.
Yeah, that why even when Chomsky directly points to where he has previously in print addressed Harris points, Harris never has the balls to admit he was wrong.
thought2007 Hey Sam,
Your logics are so simplistic that it fails to understand the levers of what you call "intention", in that "intention" is not perennial rather circumstantial. In a military conflict that "intention" is influenced mainly by two factors: power & desperation in any given circumstance.
US nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and then of Nagasaki that killed 166K and 88K civilians respectively, largest in any single military strike in human history--at a time when Germany & Italy already surrendered and Japan blockaded and is certain to surrender, is according to most experts was a projection of new found nuclear power rather than out of desperation.
Now let's look at another scenario where desperation might be on play: an asymmetric warfare where US is against a third world non-state militant. Let's call them party X. Party X in the face military struggle with a vastly superior power will inevitably strike soft civilian targets: marketplace, infrastructure, or worse: a bus full of civilians. They will do so because given the means they have that's the maximum pain they can inflict when they are facing arial bombing, missile attack, Apache strafing, drone attack, etc from their vastly superior adversary. Now someone like you will extrapolate that if these "savages" had atom bomb, they will use it on civilians (like US did). But what you miss is that if they had air force, conventional army, missiles like the US, and on the other hand, US became the third world country without military and air force... those same militants (now the imaginary super power) will not have the NEED to bomb buses or use suicide bombers...they will do exactly the same that US did: use air force, drone, etc.
thought2007 Try reading. SH said " I trust that certain of your acolytes would love to see the master in high dudgeon-believing, as you seem to, that you are in the process of mopping the floor with me-but the truth is that your emotions are getting the better of you. I’d rather you not look like the dog who caught the car."
I like Sam Harris. Having spent many years listening to his measured and clear dissections of religious apologetics, and his very sensible suggestions for atheist spiritual activity, I find the hostility and contempt shown towards him on this thread and in other sectors, particularly of "the Left", to be both baffling and distressing. Just read a comment that labeled him "an idiot"...and I had to look up the word "idiot "again, just in case the meaning of the word had somehow changed whilst I was at work...because Sam Harris is no idiot!
Neither, of course, is Chomsky. The exponential polarisation of these men and their supporters is insane. I suggest we stop buying into it.
taofist Once Harris started advocating treating all Arabs as inferior and claiming war crimes were justified, people started treating him like he deserved.
modelmajorpita See, that's just it. He never did that. So if that's the criterion for his vilification, said vilification is entirely UNdeserved!
*****
Because it's hilarious to see people censor us since they can't defend the views of their celebutante hero.
Nice job flagging links to Sam Harris' blog to get the comment removed guys!
modelmajorpita What are you talking about?
taofist
My reply with links to Sam Harris' blog and quotes of him advocating special treatment for white people and justifying war crimes was deleted.
Sam's shameless self-promotion at the expense of Prof. Chomsky gracious nature to respond to emails is a low budget move to exploit Chomsky's prestige in the intellectual world for vulgar self-interest. Harris showed poor taste in making private correspondence public - Chomsky might rethink responding to emails, which he responds regularly, if he believes his goodwill in responding will be milked by self-important publicity seekers like Sam Harris.
Rich Grisham What are you talking about ? If you read the email exchange (which you clearly didn't) he very specifically asked Chomsky permission to share the email exchange publicly and Chomsky gave his express permission.
Your post is proof that people like you don't give a shit about facts.
Flight Level 480 Yeah Prof Chomsky was apprehensive about it if read carefully, and it appears, to me, he was politely and subtly, which seems to be his nature, asking Harris to reconsider not to post these emails. There is a thing called reading between the lines.
Rich Grisham You are kidding.
Flight Level 480 No I am not.. You are either not reading carefully or you are unable to understand the conversation.
Rich Grisham Then you are an idiot in the literal sense - I have read your comments carefully and I do understand precisely that you are wrong - "Harris showed poor taste in making private correspondence public " - Is wasn't private correspondence once Chomsky gave his explicit permission that the correspondence could be published.What is not to understand here ?
Enjoyed listening to this. The host is very articulate.
Michael’s voice is still so missed. It is this sort of clarity, that comes without for even a moment sacrificing the detail or complexity of any given issue that was and remains so impressive.
Pretty much everyone embarrasses themselves trying to debate Chomsky.
I love how towards the end of their exchange, Chomsky summarizes what they have been talking about, and just makes super-rational arguments about the way he deals with people's "intentions", and what does Harris say? He complains about being mistreated, and how he has "now lost hope that we can communicate effectively in this medium". Why? That was exactly the point in their discussion, where Chomsky was adressing his question in the most understandable, rational way. I couldn't believe what I was reading! What is actually wrong with this guy?
"Noam Chomsky is a leading authority in this stuff'.
According to who?
Raoul Borans According to anyone with a clue about it. He is routinely acknowledged to be the world's leading public intellectual, full stop. He's been an analyst and critic of U.S. foreign policy for the past fifty years and has written over a hundred books on the subject, all as well as doing his day job being 'the father of modern linguistics.' Outside the U.S. he is widely read and respected. Try using the internet to learn something rather using it as a platform for venting your ill - informed spleen.
Alasdair Church How about not using a forum of exchange of opinions to try and tell someone they can't have an opinion that differs from yours...douchebag.
Raoul Borans Alasdair Church You asked a question, he gave a good answer. He didn't say you couldn't have an opinion, he said your opinion was uninformed and he is right.
***** thank you..exactly
***** "Islamic violence", what a BS. There is no Christian, Islamic, Communist, blah blah violence. There is one violence and that is human violence with several Justifications. US is the main reason that Middle East is devastated right now. It backed dictators, crushed democratic governments, killed millions, funded fundamentalists and now cannot control the situation anymore.
I've been circling Sam Harris work for the last few years and the problems i have with him and his audience are articulated well here. Shame the host here has passed on. He was sharp. RIP.
When I was first discovering I was an atheist in my young 20s, I really liked Harris. Then I aged a bit, got a degree in political science, and become aware of his extremely problematic views on international security. His arrogance is astounding. He has no training, experience, or new ideas about the Middle East, but assumes he knows much better than one of the most brilliant academics in modern history. Harris is out of his depth.
Look, the studies are in...Problems in the Middle East are far better explained by institutional and diplomatic factors than theology. For Harris, theology is the answer to everything -- simply because that's the only part of the topic he understands. He doesn't want to accept that terrorists are more motivated about the drones in their country than the religion they grow up with -- but that's what the people that actually study this for a living have concluded.
And what does the guy with no credentials, credibility, or new ideas think we need to do to improve the situation? Well more bombs, support for Israel, and lectures about their religion of course....that will work...
If Noam Chomsky is supposed to be so brilliant and erudite then why does he get testy, defensive and evasive when having his positions challenged?
If you talk to a real academic philosopher they enjoy the dialectic, argument, and will back up their positions. Chomsky's just an ideologue.
charlesvan13 Whatever minor irritation Chomsky may have felt did not come from having his position challenged, but from having to explain this very slowly to simpleton with delusions of grandeur.
Rob McCune No. I read the emails. Chomsky didn't explain his positions; he evaded any questions. Only two issues were brought up
1. the relevance of intentions in evaluating an action ethically,
2. the relative atrociousness of the 911 attack and the Al Shifa bombing.
But absolutely nothing was clarified.
I understand that Chomsky didn't like Harris because of what he wrote in End of Faith. But if you don't respect someone, then it's more appropriate to not respond, rather than continue to write petulant, evasive emails.
charlesvan13 Chomsky made his positions quite clear. What he didn't do was play Harris's games, the whole piece reeks of a false dichotomy that any moral difference in intentions necessarily means a profound difference. Harris tried to go down that path and corner Chomsky into concession after concession. But Chomsky was having none of it, and demolished Harris on his implications that U.S. foreign policy is a Pollyanna-esque exercise in pure benevolence.
Rob McCune Harris wasn't trying to argue that "US foreign policy is a pollyannesque exercise in benevolence.
Didn't you notice that Harris agreed that the Al Shifa bombing was a scandal? The difference was that Harris didn't share Chomsky's absolute moral certainty in regard to that. And Chomsky took that as a personal attack.
I'm only glad I read this fruitless exchange because the reactions I've read are so strange. I realize that Noam has many loyal fans--perhaps you. But I just feel his logic and reasoning are half-backed. And the Nazi analogy was grotesque. Even a naïve person knew their motives were sinister.
I think it was silly of Harris to post this, considering how it went.
charlesvan13 Funny Harris didn't share the moral certainty of a man he claimed spread moral confusion. I'm not a Chomsky fan, nor have I read any of his books. From what I read he addressed the issues, kept on topic, and dealt with reality, none of which I can say for Harris. Chomsky was civil enough before Harris started whining about tone, I've seen it before and wilting under criticism seems to be one of his defensive tactics.
I am not a blanket Harris follower. But Noam lost a lot of my respect in that exchange. He was a real ass.
Same could / should be said about Noam followers.
maninspired If that's what did it then it doesn't sound like it's worth having.
maninspired I've been a chomskyan for years, so much so that I've been ridiculed and called a chomskybot and a fanboy of his, and I still stand by much of what he has to offer. But I agree with you. Chomsky was belligerent. I am beginning to see all of his recent bouts with other intellectuals in a new light, such as the conflict with Zizek, with Lakoff, and many others. It's not that Chomsky is wrong necessarily, it's that he's intolerant of anyone trying to think independently of his "system of thought."
maninspired Notice how Chomsky and his followers don't like actual argument. As soon as Chomsky is questioned he gets defensive that someone would dare question his authority.
RadicalPragmatist1 yes chomsky is intolerant of people that literally don't make any sense, yet pretend they do
Summed up well: www.samharris.org/blog/item/final-thoughts-on-chomsky I think many are missing the key point. Here we have two extremely intelligent people (anybody who says one or the other is "stupid" should go home) who could not come together to have a debate / discussion on topics which define our time.
Brooks seems to be talking about Hitchens here, whenever he remarks on Harris. Perhaps he just conflates them.
“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?”
― Mahatma Gandhi
***** I never said Gandhi was a hero. No matter who said this, it is a FACT:
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Simon Wood The difference is that delusional SH can use the former to justify the latter.
Simon Wood Now, who doesn't understand international politics? Do you really believe it is realistic that the nations of the world become pacifists (like Gandhi)? Or that it is even good? Should we have been pacifists when Nazi Germany expanded their borders? Should we remain pacifists if North Korea drops an atom bomb on another country? Pacifism is a noble pursuit who can serve a good purpose in some instances, but it is naive and immoral to use pacifism in all instances. For instance towards someone raping a small girl? Would you just ask him kindly to stop and turn away if he said no?
Arne Kristian Lindmo Nazi Germany claimed the moral high ground. North Korea claims the moral high ground. We claimed the moral high ground when we invaded Iraq. Every despot professes good intentions. Every policy - including those that lead to the rape of little girls - is based on good intentions. We professed good intentions when we ACTUALLY dropped atom bombs on Japan. This has nothing to do with pacifism. It's remarkable that so many Sam Harris disciples simply do not understand this.
OldBoy Listen to yourself. You are saying that everyone is claiming the moral high ground. So are every actor on the international stage a villain? From what you are saying no one is to be trusted, not even ourselves. I would call that a defeatist attitude which leaves no opportunities for building a better world. If we follow your logic we would be paralyzed and couldn't do anything. Take the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. I bet you would say that the Hutus had "good" intentions. Noone came to the rescue and up to a million people were slaughtered. I bet you also would criticise anyone actually coming to their rescue as having "good" intentions (but really not, and would blame them for getting involved in warfare).
Forget about those on the ground. Sam Harris probably has never spoken to american Muslim imams and clerics. Example dr yasir qadhi
Harris was so out of his depth in that e-mail exchange it was embarrassing for him
Harris may have a naive view of US intentions and Chomsky maybe neglecting the importance of intentions but who knows what would have resulted from a respectful discussion. Like this video, these comments are beyond pathetic! Not one unbiased opinion in sight. Its very obvious to anyone reading this exchange that can think for themselves that no debate took place. Sam Harris tried to start one over the role that intention plays in foreign policy, using very simple thought experiments to demonstrate his point. It would appear Chomsky took some offense to this challenge as he is undeniably dismissive and accuses Harris of misrepresenting his view. Harris asks how he has misrepresented him numerous times, Chomsky doesn't explain, instead he ramps up the insults. Harris tries a few more times and fails to put the conversation back on track. Which is a shame as they had the chance to test and refine their views.
He does explain, you just need to read carefully. Harris said Chomsky doesn’t consider intentions when if you have ever read a Chomsky book, he does consider intentions. Chomsky just doesn’t say the US intentions are great because the US professes so, what he says is I don’t know, the intellectually honest position, but we can examine the actions and what he comes to is apathy, which he considers sometimes worse than purposefully killing. Based on the Al-Shifa incident that happened, there was a letter sent to Clinton from HRW where a guy named Kenneth Roth warned Clinton that there are children in the Al-Shifa facility and Clinton bombed it anyway.
why so many dislikes?
didn't know Harris had so many touchy fan-boys..
Here's a solid idea DON'T DEBATE NOAM CHOMSKY (especially if you're this pseudo intellectual, erudite hack (who speaks like he's writing a paper in college and trying to impress his professor). Also, do not step in the ring with Muhammad Ali in 1967, do not try to play chess with Capablanca, etc.
Haha. Always spot on with the analogies, MTV NEWS.
No, its a battle alot of people would win quite easily. Sam Harris isn't one of those people though
Embarrasses? That is just not what I got out of that email exchange at all.
Harris got wrecked. I read the whole damn debate. It was pretty brutal.
Matthew Pendleton It wasn't a debate.
Davy Ker Yes, I can accept that.
"It is not permissible that the authors of devastation should also be innocent. It is the innocence which constitutes the crime." (James Baldwin)
Sam Harris is the Ann Coulter of atheism. Nuff said.
MrBobbillo your argument is inherently flawed as you aren’t pointing out what’s wrong with Ann Coulter
@@JamesK13 besides being such a bitch that someone had such a personal vendetta against her to kill her with a chainsaw
PERFECT description. Let's be honest Harris isnt taken seriously in academic poli sci circles because he is the Ann Coulter of poli sci.
Rest in Peace Michael I wish I had found you earlier😥😥
I'm amazed at the number of people on here referring to Harris as an apologist for atrocity or a zealot himself. provide for me one example in which he does so.
"Bombing civilians is ok if you mean well."
+suejak1 willfully trying not to understand his position.
+Nicholas D'Agostino Nice way to describe yourself, because that's exactly and preciesly his view.
He's a text book follower of western/american exceptionism.
@@suejak1 He doesn't say that.
N Dimarelli this is just a far left Islamic apologist channel, u won't find rationale here
After viewing this and Harris' video I found and read the e-mail exchange. I might add, this ‘exchange’ was initiated and published by Harris. Chomsky, all along, commenting on the futility of the exchange but acquiescing to its publication, basically saying I don’t see the point but go ahead, ‘I won’t object.’
My take away was as follows: To use a vernacular much less polite than professor Chomsky, Sam Harris grabbed a stick and went poking around in a bear cave, and then cried like a trick when the bear pimp slapped him. Please excuse the indelicate and mixed metaphors.
Two murderous actions are compared: one (by them, 911) was executed with every intention of killing as many people as possible, because ‘they hate us.’ The second, carried out by us (bombing of Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory) was based on accusations which fell apart upon minimal investigation (i.e. ‘they were making chemical weapons/or their precursors for terrorists.’)
Their crime killed 3,000+. Our crime (and yes, under international law it was a crime) resulted in an estimate of tens of thousands of deaths by eliminating their only source for life sustaining medications. Harris argues that their crime was more evil because of intent, that is, they wanted as many victims as possible, while we didn’t intend to kill anyone. I see it as a distinction without much of a difference - in large part because it’s false.
Both actions were crimes. One set of deaths resulting from insane, hateful, murderous, rage. The other set of deaths, were totally predictable - in fact Clinton aware of information provided by, among others, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch had to know they were practically assured - consequences of the bombing but he did it anyway because, again to use non flowery rhetoric, he just didn’t give a shit how many people would die. After all we’re only talking about a bunch of nameless, faceless Africans - right?
So, to a reasonable observer, the distinction between intentions is one without much difference.
One side did it with murderous intent (3,000+ dead), the other with callous disregard for guaranteed human suffering and loss of life (tens of thousands dead). And, Harris is arguing about who meant it vs., who really, really meant it. It’s almost the argument one would expect from a child.
But, one may protest, we thought they were making chemical weapons for terrorists; the smoking gun - mushroom cloud argument that was laughable when Rice later used it. Well, a group of reporters who actually bothered to investigate - in very short order - found this to be false. Clinton had at his disposal the F.B.I., C.I.A., and N.S.A., but we’re expected to believe their investigative skills didn’t rise to the level of some curious journalists. I might add here, that Clinton has yet to produce any credible evidence for his chemical weapons claim. Couple that with the timing of the bombing of the Al-Shifa factory - right on the heels of attacks on U.S. embassies abroad - and one would have to be willfully blind to not question/suspect Clinton’s accusations and motives.
In reading the e-mail exchange and contemplating the surrounding circumstances, i.e., who initiated and then published it, I can’t help drawing the analogy of a young gunslinger trying to up his street-cred by taking on the ‘king of the hill.’ In my opinion he failed miserably - smoking holes everywhere.
RIP Michael Brooks
i kind of get the feeling that sam harris wrote the screenplay for team america..
.......Maaaaaaatt Daaaaaaamonnnn
I get the feeling you never made it out of 5 th grade
Why so many dislikes. Everything he says about Harris is true.
That's kind of scary.
+Sophia V a lot of dislikes because Chomsky was a butt hurt little baby. When harris offered him the chance to openly discuss the issues the response was to attack harris and assume him as some sort of confused ideologue. Further when they corresponded by email, Chomsky appeared to believe harris in capable of answering a question, he would not let the issue drop. If you are willing to rise for a second above Chomsky's unfounded moral reverse Machiavellianism, then you see this was a debate about how the left is fractured and Noam's loony socialists have not got the ability to put it back together again the way they want. He could not handle someone with intelligence that would take his morals musings back to the drawing board for a good review. P.S It seriously scares you that people take interest in a neuro-biologist who advocates for people to take up meditation? Grow up, nazis are not around every corner.
+Sophia V Nah he is misrepresenting an lying about Sam Harris (PBUH). Sam Harris is God on Earth and anyone who disagrees is a liar Muslim-apologist regressive.
Because Sam makes low IQed American warmongers feel good about themselves. There's a movement of truth hitting the USA, that America is the real terrorist of the world, so patriotic Americans run to Sam to get spooned lies straight from the Pentagon. Sam is like prozac for many people that can't handle the truth.
So many words used incorrectly. So many of the views of a career academic misrepresented.
Wait, i know who you are like. Read much Noam Chomsky before posting your comment?
Strawmen in this video could build a country of scarecrows.
Normally I hate Sam Seder, but Chomsky has been doing this since before Harris was born, and this is not figuratively ment. This is literally so.
pretty much dead on.
i read the emails. Chomsky came off as way too combative and i think that threw Sam Harris off a little.... he didn't quite know how to engage him in a philosophical discussion. I really dont think Chomsky was up for it from the get go.
tiara n comparing people who agree with sam harris to a bunch of sheeps following a ''guru'' is just stupid though. sam harris supporters agree with his arguments and they can give you reasons to why they believe hes correct.... a sheep following a guru usually would not.
tiara n The difference between SH and NC is that the first one does not have any problem with his own side's violence , he considers his own side good-intended, but doesn't think the other side has any good intentions, he also thinks that you can distort reality with "philosophical discussions" of nonsense scenarios, while ignoring all the facts on the ground that of course makes his "arguments" sound childish. But you know if you throw some random good words like "philosophical discussion" that makes you a "reasonable person", no matter how genocidal you are.
SH is everything that is wrong with the West: narcissistic, without any fair view of the "other", who thinks he is morally wealthy than the other side, never mind his own side literally destroyed Middle East in the past few decades.
NC's calling him out for his hypocrisy and genocidal apologizing, made him complain of NC being mean to him.
And you know what, you are just another supporter of genocide. When the white people were conquering Africa and India, they have same kind of rationalization with "we are superior" argument. You can have your own delusion of course, you can even share SH's delusion, but that would be much better to live in the real world.
AmirShapour Bizar no i think you are over simplifying what hes saying. hes trying to have an honest discussion about morality which i think is pretty interesting. i agree with him that there is a moral difference when a terrorist purposely targets innocent people to cause maximum terror as opposed to the US military causing innocent civilian deaths due to reckless actions or simply by not caring. while i think this is an interesting philosophical discussion to have... it does not help much with foreign policy. yes there is different intent there... however the end results are not much different... you still end up with many deaths caused by selfish and reckless behavior.
but to over simplify sam harris and make him out to be some war mongering muslim hater goes too far. i've listened to a lot of his talks and discussions... and he usually is careful to explain the context of the discussion.
Ann Nguyen We tortured innocent people, we knew were innocent. Sam Harris defended torture, he defended profiling, he defended Cruz’s Muslim ban. Harris is an intellectual coward because he back tracks from these controversial statements when faced with substantive criticism. He is an apologist for Western Supremacy.
Harris embarrasses himself? The opposite is true. I read the whole transcript of the e-mail exchange, and Chomsky came across as defensive, rude and almost fearful of an open debate - with good reason, as this is one of the few areas where he's very weak. I've always admired Chomsky for many reasons, but we shouldn't lionise him. The exchange with Harris proves he's far from infallible, as none of us are.
+JoeStunner Chomsky was rude (I don't know about defensive) due to Sam Harris insisting that Chomsky takes position x when Chomsky told him multiple times in the exchange (not to mention in many of the books he has written) that he takes position y. Debate is futile with a person who insists that you hold a position that you do not despite being told that the opposite is true multiple times.
All Sam Harris had to say was that Chomsky refuses to consider intentions as a moral question and that was it, Chomsky was brandished with the hot iron. It's literally what happens to Harris repeatedly (although I do think he is a terrible communicator of ideas). So, no matter how many times Chomsky displayed that we can never actually be certain of the intentions of actors and that what are considered 'good' intentions are wholly subjective anyway, Harris was completely blind to it. It's incredible that you read the exchange and didn't pick up on even the slightest hint of that.
rest in peace Michael
This was such a stark demonstration of Harris' myopia. Everyone should read the entire exchange. Amazing to me that Harris released something that damns him so flagrantly.
AgtDaleChomsky He fills the middle with a long diatribe that should have been it's own blog post to try to poison the well for the rest of the conversation. Don't under estimate the ability of his followers to be led around by the nose by their "thought leader."
AgtDaleChomsky This is the proof that everyone needs to see that Harris is an asshole.
AgtDaleChomsky Can you send me the link, please?
www.alternet.org/belief/sam-harris-made-himself-look-idiot-email-exchange-chomsky-and-has-shared-it-world
AgtDaleChomsky thx, :)
"Sam Harris does not understand politics, and doesn't understand international relations."
Disliked. Move on.
***** Shrimp?
Basically, you meant to say: I am butthurt....moving on!
***** Sap, if there is a tall tree near the barn.
I bet the only thing Harris is embarrassed about is that your names are the same. Disliked and Unsubbed!
KnivesOfTheRound Further evidence of the irony that Sam Harris's followers view him as a Guru. Harris's followers seem to be even more ignorant than he is.
Hmm, Sam Seder calling somebody smug...talk about the porcellein figurine calling the china plate white...
The only thing I like about Sam Harris.......is his voice....
the issue I find very problematic, and I fell into this trap, is that atheists will go to the lengths of the earth to defend the likes of Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins etc, to the point of where it almost becomes comical. How does that make us any different than those fanatics who would die for irrational beliefs?
not by much and Their Lord promise them Paradise if they are crown killing people for joy which Atheist doesn't have the privilege that they do
Harris lost me a few years ago.
Yes indeed - Harris has little knowledge about US foreign policy. His "thought experiments" are becoming (becoming is being generous) mostly absurd. Why he thinks he is even close to Chomsky on foreign policy is a mystery to me.
That's not Sam Harris' view on the invasion of Iraq.
Explain what you mean.
Jesus Christ, dude I'm not a "fan" of Sam Harris. I enjoyed his book on meditation and I do side a little more with Bill Maher and him over Reza Aslan and Ben Affleck on the Muslim issue but that's beside the point. I personally didn't see in that email where Sam Harris is misrepresenting Noam Chomsky's views (AKA: being intellectually dishonest) - point that out in the email. I read it and I didn't see it. Just so you know I'm probably more of a "fan" of Chomsky than Harris - Chomsky has seriously shaped my worldviews since I was young.
eas leeps viewing Iraq's invasion as strategic rather than moral failure is. In other words, violence is not bad if it is done by us, it is only bad when it is done by a religion and in particular Islam. In the case of our violence, we can rationalize it easily by all sort of "intent rhetoric". But you know, the other side has no "noble intent". When you lose intellectual fairness in applying your standards to one of the sides of the argument, you barely are a thinker, let alone a "critical thinker".
***** I am not sure about his dishonesty, but he suffers from a significant amount of hypocrisy.
*****
Omitting to discuss or analyze believes that lead US foreign policy to be the deadliest. he is essentially radical nationalist
I often hear the claim that Sam Harris (or any of the so called "new atheists" for that matter) is viewed as a guru, where his followers are just 'uncapable of thinking for themselves and thus "outsource" their thinking to Harris'. One could argue that Chomsky is a guru to his followers, Dawkins to his, Hedges to his etc. etc. This argument does not hold ground unless you got actual data to support it.
There are many good points from both "Chomskyites" and the "Harrisites" but how to conduct a conversation properly is something that seems to get more and more lost on the former. One example could be the title of this video. Articles on Salon, Alternet, as well as titles on TyT videos seem to be going more and more in the direction of a certain right-wing news org in both headlines and the level of bias/smearing etc in it's content. I also see a trend among certain liberals where it has become quite popular in internet discussions linking to an article supporting one's view instead of explaining one's own argument. Which could suggest that it is not the "Harrisites" who are the worst at outsourcing their thinking to their "masters".
The ultra focus on "Western politics as the only factor" can restrain critical thought just as much as a religious doctrine. I believe global warming is happening because the experts in that scientific field are showing us the evidence supporting the claim; I meet people who make the claim but appearantly only because they want to "blame the US / the west" for it, knowing very little about the science itself. The ends do not always justify the means.
PS! It must be hilariously amusing for the christian-right wingers to see liberal atheists focusing (most of) their attention fighting eachother. "The Judean peoples front? SPLITTERS!" :)
I've read two of Sam Harris's books, listened to the few podcasts that he has, listened to all four of his podcasts on the Joe Rogan Experience, listened to several debates and conversations of his on UA-cam, and read some of the articles on his site. I have NEVER heard him say he was in support of the Iraq War.
'Agree or disagree - Noam Chomsky is just at a different level'? Well okay then, disagree. I didn't read their entire correspondence in detail, but from what I saw, Chomsky came across as unfriendly, overly sensitive and arrogant, while Harris was trying to have a productive discussion in a public forum.
God damn, you nailed it. Thank you.
I've seldom seen an ass kicking of this magnitude. The only reason I can think of why Sam Harris wanted to publish the emails is that he might have feared that the emails would leak out at a later stage. I almost felt bad for him. Almost.
OldBoy I think you overestimate Sam Harris' fanbase and underestimate their ability to be led around by the nose. When Harris published the emails he stuck a long diatribe right in the middle before the real as kicking began to essentially break up the conversation, strawman Chomsky, and poison the well for the rest of the exchange.
OldBoy " The only reason I can think of why Sam Harris wanted to publish the emails is that he might have feared that the emails would leak out at a later stage. I almost felt bad for him."
He asks Chomsky in the mail exchange permission to publish the exchange. It's clear Noam had no intention leaking documents nor has he ever done so with private email, he says plainly "I don’t circulate private correspondence without authorization".
This is more of a condemnation of the character of Chomsky than it is Sam if this is the only conclusion you can come to...
Chino Gambino Chomsky fanboys are no different William Lane Craig fanboys after when Harris trounced him. They'll still come out and say that day was night just to claim victory and Chomsky disciples will eat it up like dog vomit, especially professional Harris trolls like OldBoy who has quite the reputation on Twitter.
Yourinquirer I don't understand it personally. Do any of us have a dog in this race? Sam doesn't claim victory and Noam is similarly indifferent to the impasse, yet these tribes come out of the woodwork to defend a ground that was never contested regardless.
I get more annoyed at these contrived accusations people invent when pubic intellectuals are open to having their views torn to shreds in good faith. This guy pretty much assumes Noam is a massive cunt who would 'leak' emails for public acclaim and Harris is such a cynical bastard he would read Noam to be that way inclined as well. The theory makes little sense either way yet gains 8 upvotes.
You are free to downplay the email exchange, you can call me a troll, accuse me of nonsense, or - ironically - spend your time stalking me over the internet like a bunch of fan boys, just to tell me how unimportant this is (of course, I'm assuming that your time is important). But know that it's ignoramuses like yourselves, who give a dangerous man such as Harris main stream credibility. Sam Harris is a man who is playing with fire that will end up burning others. It's exchanges like this that reveal his true nature. They reveal how ill-thought-out his positions as a so-called intellectual are. Unfortunately for you, you're too stupid to see it. So, keep sucking Harris' dick, as he provides some pseudo-intellectual justification for your (increasingly) thinly veiled bigotry. But please don't claim the high ground while you're doing it.
Sam Harris was nobody. He married an editor and used some connections to get known for jotting down some thoughts on religion we all had in middle school. He thinks he bridged the is/ought gap but hmmm, the world is still the same. Why would that be? His views on politics are not just misguided- they are stupid. I didn't like Hitchens when he turned either but I would have never called him stupid.
Will Moffett San Harris IS a nobody
you mean to say he is/was/will be nobody
Harris continually likes to evoke his kinship with Hitchens now that the man is gone, despite the fact that all he shared with that man was his one bigoted weakness intellectually.
He's putting words in Sam Harris' mouth I think.
Wow, michael brooks really breaks it down perfectly. Awesome clarity. That said, sam harris is actually very insightful when he sticks to science, which is his expertise. When he starts talking politics i can only cringe.
I've always loved Harris' books and his debate style. His systematic dismantling of the artifice of "reasonable" religious faith is the best I've read. My opinion is that he's brilliant, but on a few issues I've increasingly come to think he misses the mark, or worse.
1. I didn't think his explanations for refusing to entertain criticism of Israel are adequate.
2. I'm unconvinced about the genetic basis of faith that he espouses.
3. He crosses over into politics too much to be talking around the biggest issue of our time: wealth and income inequality.
Sam Harris has always enjoyed a prominent spot among my personal favorite public intellectuals. I'm beginning to think I'll have to demote him or omit him entirely.
Chomsky has some holes too. I've never felt he's offered any compelling or realistic alternatives to a good form of capitalist democracy. However, in Chomsky's case, his entire body of work and ideas about consistently forcing authority to justify itself have undeniable merit. Not that you care, but Chomsky remains in my top 10, just in the bottom half of it.
In the end, you couldn't go very far wrong to read everything both men have written, and then draw your own conclusions. Skip Chomsky on linguistics if you must.
Chomsky is an authority in linguistics, specifically syntax.
This was trash. Plain and simple.
should have expected it given the length alone.
if sams going to embarrass himself maybe include him doing it aye??? and he didn't....you just still think you are right. Not the same thing at all.
intentions matter
what are these intentions you speak of?
nope, no such thing, only measurement of harm.
noam wouldn't make it to the level of a court system a few hundred years back lol
intent matters.
intent is not an excuse thouugh which seems to be what many here think Sams position is....it's more like the guys deliberately trying to kick you is worse than the guy that is trying to walk and kicked you by accident. Noam sees these as equal. the important thing for those that have commented is they BOTH see BOTH SITUATIONS AS BAD.
Honestly, i was hoping to see if noams views had made progress since i last checked and my god was i soo much more disappointed than i expected. Not only not forward..but backwards
For the record, I still stand with noam against intervention wars
Sam Harris arguments are the same of ethnocentric colonialism, perfected by the British, who led to the invention of anthropology in order to rationalized imperialism.
Much of that extremism come from the constant attack of powerful countries imposing their will by force.
He was trying to have a conversation with the man. The only embarrassment is Harris' optimism about the possibility of having a polite discussion with Chomsky.
Rest in power Michael
If Harris doesn't understand politics, it'd be easy for Chomsky to mop the floor with Harris in a debate, no? Chomsky could 'break the spell' of Harris's ideas on peoples brains. Then, why won't he do it?
Im a Muslim and I admire your courage.
Wow, how can you disagree that intention matters? This is so straight forward. Why do you think there is first, second and third degree murder?
This is the smuggest podcaster I have ever seen. I have to assume he spends his days fighting for women in Pakistan.
Funny that Chomsky will debate Alex Jones and Bill Buckley and just about any other right winger, but not a left winger who disagrees with him in a single space.
I still don't get where these guys get Harris's views from: he has NEVER supported the Iraq war. Refusing to indulge in masochism does not make you pro-war.
It's also odd that this clown jabs him for not "standing with moderates" when the guy is writing a book with Majaad Newaz--who has done more to fight radicalism than any other major public figure I know.
to embarrass ones self does one not need to have dignity?...
1:01 "I don't read UA-cam comments." Translation: I wouldn't like my echo-chamber to be diluted with subversive thoughts and idea's that make me uncomfortable.
This is probably the best assessment of the Harris/Chomsky non-debate I have heard or read.
I think Harris chased him because of that youtube clip where Chomsky is asked about the new atheist movement being led by Hitchens and Harris. He states that they are pro-war and buying into the "state religion". Of course this comment was more about Hitchens than Harris, so Harris should have let it slide.
"Don't put Sam Harris on a pedestal. Chomsky is miles above him. "
you people always distort what Sam Harris says.
It's funny how he and his people bitch about this constantly. Thin-skinned ignorant islamophobes.
Islamophobia is the most idiotic buzzword ever invented. There is absolutely nothing "irrational" about a concern about Islam. And "thin-skinned"? For pointing out, quite accurately, that people can't debate him directly and depend upon straw-manning his views? Yet, jihadist apologists like yourself scream "Racist!" and "Bigot!" every time a perfectly legitimate critique of Islam is made? Right..
"Lol calm down we're just accusing you of being racist xenophobes."
And nobody, least of all Harris, argued that they don't exist.
This is a really good assessment. Subscribed...
Stupid title.
Just because Harris has an essentially apologist approach to US foreign policy shouldn't turn you off about him. I think he, like Bill Maher, has allowed his anti-religious dogma (with a specific focus on Islam) to infect his otherwise sophisticated mode of analysis about shit. But we all have our own idiosyncrasies that may undermine all our other awesomeness, which it shouldn't. Harris is a dope intellectual but with some blindspots.
Avi Gindratt Avi i listened to his ''Why I don't criticize Israel'' and it was painful to listen to it was so bad. If he stuck to criticizing religion and left out the politics he would do a lot better. I actually thought he did a good job against Aslan when he did that.
Cy5208 There was nothing bad at all about his talk about Israel. It was absolutely brilliant, he brought forward valid criticism toward the state of Israel, the settlers and the conflict in general, but he also brought you that nasty, chewy and uncomfortable fact about Hamas and the palestinians that you people who just blindly criticize Israel conveniently and always ignore.
Never mind the fact that FOX has been spinning the narrative over and over and given it a bad name: he was completely right about what he said about Hamas. And the situation in which these two people are in is extremely complicated and CAN'T be viewed as black and white. It is the case that the majority of palestinians are highly anti-semitic and that on the top of Hamas's priority list is destroying Israel and killing all jews in the world. That's just a fact. Does this mean the israelis should undertake extremely dangerous and lifethreatening raids in one of the world's most crowded places? Obviously not, but then again, when you say that, you are missing the clear nuances that differ the israeli government and the palestinian leadership: the israelis install super-safe defense networks, hamas forces people out in the street and use women and children as their human shields.
Batman _ I agree with Cy52..., and I don't blindly criticize Israel. I can hold two thoughts in my head at the same time. Hamas is a horrendous terrorist organization bent on racism and religious violence, too.
"It is the case that the majority of palestinians are highly anti-semitic and that on the top of Hamas's priority list is destroying Israel and killing all jews in the world."--true. And you can say similar (though not exactly equal) things about Israel.
Are the belligerents different? Not really. They're just not the same: One side is Arab, the other Israeli; one is the occupying force, the other the occupied; one has nukes, the other makeshift rockets. Frankly, using human shields, while deplorable, does not excuse shooting at them, which is an international crime, btw. And 'super safe' missiles and bombs n artillery--isn't that a bit of an oxymoron if you're the target?
Batman _ Sorry 4 the delay I didnt get the msg
I just suggest you talk take the time to see what B'Tselem and Breaking the Silence have had to say including the recent interviews with IDF soldiers about firing indiscriminately into civilian areas before you comment further.Or the UN report about Israel firing at their compounds.
& sure as an ideological stance Hamas wants to wipe out the Zionist state but they have also said they will -as part of a democratically elected government -deal with them as political necessity.
Nor do you mention anything about the continued blockade, nor the continued theft of Palestinian land.
With due respect Harris’ critique is so lopsided to be farcical. Norman Finklestein would wipe the floor with Sam and make Chomsky look gentle in comparison.
I love the way this title says so much about the person posting it.
Sam Seder embarrasses himself while trying to strawman others
That's pretty hilarious considering that attacking Seder in such a vague way on a thread beneath a video of Brooks is the definition of using the STRAW MAN argument. You should read your stuff before posting. Unless you did and are just that unaware.
Both Chomsky and Harris ended up embarrassing themselves. Neither were capable of having a coherent conversation, though Harris seemed to try at least. The truth is that Harris wanted to talk about ethics, and Chomsky wanted to show that Harris had misrepresented his views, then leave. Harris didn't want to get caught up in trading accusations, so tried to use analogies to get to ethical bedrock, to establish some basic agreement before reconsidering the case of the pharmaceutical plant. Chomsky came off as dismissive and grumpy. Harris came off as evasive and confused. If two smart guys like this can't communicate, what hope is there for the rest of us?
What I read was Sam Harris trying to engage in conversation with Noam Chomsky, while Chomsky was trying to do his best to dissuade Harris from having said conversation. Chomsky seemed to be going out of his way to deliver low blows while Harris kept coming back with discussion points.
I would agree that it was silly of Harris to pursue the exchange with someone who clearly doesn't want to speak with him, but I can't say I agree that Harris "Embarasses himself". If anything, what I got out of the conversation is that Chomsky is a bit of a jerk.
This video and the comments attached to it stink of Fanboyism which I must say underlines my impressions of the discussion ; Harris wanted a conversation, Chomsky wanted a battle.
I was very disappointed by the discussion. Insulting someone does nothing to show him wrong and, more importantly, does nothing to advance the conversation.
MagicofAramis No, Harris got a discussion, one where he got more than he bargained for. Chomsky kept on topic and engaged the issue substantively and didn't get derailed by Harris or play into his rinky dink thought experiments he got from Playdoh's Republic. What Harris did, as he often does, was cry fowl to try and wriggle out of a debate he knows he's not winning while at the same time eliciting sympathy.
I suppose we'll have to disagree, but I'd like to use your comment to highlight the criticism I was making of Chomsky and of the comments on this video if I may.
You are accusing Harris of using "Rinky Dink thought experiments he got from Playdoh's Republic". Now I assume you are aware that the Playdoh Republic is not in fact a geographical location on this planet. It is an expression you are using to demean Harris without actually having to address any substance. Your approach was the one Chomsky used. What is gained from this approach? Could you not instead address the substance of these thought experiments you think are so juvenile?
There is nothing wrong with calling foul (Yes, foul, a "Fowl" is a bird) when a foul has actually occurred. Just like I called you out for using "playdoh republic thought experiment" and believing you had successfully dismantled Harris' case, Harris called Chomsky out more than once for resorting to condescending language and calling points "Silly" instead of addressing them.
MagicofAramis why would you address thought experiments that were totally irrelevant to the subject?
Remember Chomsky asked of clintons' bombing of sudan and he asked harris what would we do if people like alqaeda did the same thing to us. Sam did not answer the question. What he did was change the subject to show the difference between terrorism and collateral damage. That is not chomskys' point. His point is simple. It is that human values are universal. If it is wrong for you then it is also wrong for me. So if it is not moral for alqaeda to bomb half of US pharmaceutical facility and probably kill millions of people because they had intelligence that America is producing chemical weapons (like white phosphorus) and that they might use against them (like they did in fallugah). Then it is wrong for us too. Sam Harris never responded to that. Actually I didnt get the vibe that Sam even thought it was a war crime which even by his scenario it would be.
But by the way I totally agree that chomsky made himself look like an asshole and I was incredibly disappointed in the way he talked to sam harris like he was a 15 year old kid. But that does not change the fact that chomskys' point still stands despite the fact that he made himself look like a douche-bag.
Thank you for your thought provoking response.
My impression of the particular passage you are speaking of was that their disagreement boiled down to whether or not the US government knew these were pharmaceutical labs. It seems reasonable to concede that Chomsky is probably better informed on the matter and is thus more likely to be correct, but the main point is that assuming they end up recognizing they disagree on the specific example, the question can be reformulated (for example in the way you phrased it) and answered. But instead, we got one guy trying to punch the other while the other was whining "Stop punching me!" instead of just walking away.
I'm fairly certain Sam Harris does not think we should be targeting the People's medical supplies, by the way. Even if we are at war with that people's government.
MagicofAramis They knew Al Shifa was a pharmaceutical plant. That's was no secret. The cia and people in the Clinton administration thought it was being used to manufacture chemicals for chemical weapons, or precursors. The cia found EMPTA, or O-Ethyl methylphosphonothioic acid a VX nerve agent precursor. They got some other tips, which may or may not have been accurate.
Both agreed that the missile attack was unwarranted, although they both are wrong that there was no evidence--just probably not nearly enough.
Harris wanted to discuss with Chomsky why he equated this attack with 911. This equivalence implied that intent was little relevant to ethics. But that was an issue that Chomsky really didn't want to discuss.
I think Chomsky has some kind of borderline personality disorder, where other people's motives are suspect and wicked.
As Iraqian I love Chomsky but in this issue I support Harris
I'd be interested in Brook's disagreements with Chomsky. It's hard to imagine other than he views our military ventures with slightly less ominous motives or purpose.
8.20 - hilarious "Harris is not on the same level as Chomsky and its embarrassing" - No, whats embarrassing is that an opportunity for further public discussion has been lost.
Wow, I have not watched this liberal channel before. Not impressed.
I fucking love this video. Thank you for adding more context, more back up, and I admit more articulation than Ive been able to muster about Sam Harris. I've argued against Sam Harris for basically all the reasons you mention.
Harris is smug and very narrow-minded and because of his easy sort of tone, his wordiness, and even-tempered appearance he fools people into believing he is an unquestionable authority on foreign relations and Muslim mentality (as if there is a singular mentality). He vastly over-simplifies and gets away with it most times, and it drives me crazy when I listen to him.
I don't know how you got the idea that this video was acceptable unless you neglected to actually read the correspondence between Harris and Chomsky.
My god these comment sections could give you a brain tumor.
Misinformed and poorly executed.
I thought we might hear a clip from Harris/Chomsky to set up the discussion. Interesting discussion though.
I wish Chomsky would do this more with these pseudo intellectual Libertarians (american libertarians) who think they've stumbled on to something. It sucks that Noam has to do most of the work, hopefully Yanis and him can team up and educate the masses. I like a lot of sam harris's ideas not this one but he's mostly on our side.
What Sam Seder totally discounts is the reality of the words in the Koran. In this whole rant he doesn't even mention it. And he slams Ayyan Hirsi Ali of all people, someone who has actually lived as a Muslim. I'd love to see Sam Seder actually go up against Sam Harris. Ali's experience is real, and her perspective is her own. She is not a puppet of the West. That is incredibly cynical.
That isn't sam seeder
Harris points were legitimate. Chomsky refused to take his points seriously. He was arrogant and elitist.