His lack of knowledge and disregard for philosophy leads him to the bias of thinking that the truths of spirituality and morality are either determined scientifically, or are either completely relativistic and void of any meaning, which is a point that lacks any sort of nuance. I liked him a few years back but lost interest when I saw that his ideas were already expressed hundreds of years ago and were already pretty well criticized back then too. His meditation stuff is pretty cool tho
but they are determined scientifically. Because science is.. well everything. And the truths of spirituality are part of everything just the same. Science simply explains the natural world in ways we can understand. The truths of spirituality are part of that natural world.
@@Fuar11 Not all knowledge and not all facts are scientific. There is no amount of empirical testings you could do to determine that science is the only form of knowledge, and empirical tests don't tell you why a state is preferable to another. If you deem something to be good, it wasn't neutrally derived from hypothetico-deductive method, you'd have to have assumptions about why things are good or bad, even when it comes to why science is more valuable than other things. A value judgement like that on science isn't derived from just empirical testing either, you'd have to get it from a form of dialectical rationality. Not everything rational is scientific.
@@Fuar11 you cannot define morality scientifically. Science is a tool for predicting the behavior and features of the natural world. But it is just one tool in a whole set. By only using Science as our reference point for everything, we take a large chunk of nuance and depth from our lives.
This meant a lot to me in a time when my mother is turning to religion a lot more in her fight against cancer and I am really trying to figure out what "doing good" means in my own life. Thank you :)
Harris is very occupied with the world of phenomena. From the perspective of traditional Ch'an or Zen precepts he is engaged in fantasy and delusion (妄想/虚幻). In terms of mindfulness, I'd say he is a fairly good promoter of modern western approaches to functional meditation. People tend to misuse Chinese cultural terms like Ch'an and Dao. That was really the energy of my comment, not a criticism of Harris at all.
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe Zen is a specific sect of Buddhism originating in Japan. He's never been to Japan to learn afaik. It was said he he learner primarily in India, so not Zen.
You forgot to say, " If nobody can really agree on what someone has said, have they said anything at all?" It's too good of a catchphrase to let go so soon.
it's wierd seeing intellectuals i grew up with being talked about like this. almost as surreal as seeing technology you grew up with behind panes of glass in a museum
He is what Nietzsche picks out and destroys in Beyond Good and Evil. Edit: I see that I have caused a lot of people to be confused since I have not specified what I mean. I had the part "we scientists" from "Beyond Good and Evil" in mind. So many people have, in some way or another, outlined what I mean in the replies.
Sam Harris, despite being an atheist, still grounds his 'scientific' ethics in the moral feelings that come from Christianity. Humanism is just Christianity without the God to sanction it. Edit: He'd probably agree with the assertion "God is dead", but wouldn't think all too deeply about the consequences this has on the old moral worldview we inherited. Take for example: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Without a 'creator', this moral 'truth' is not at all "self-evident". Without the idea of a 'soul', which every man could be in equal possession of, there is no steady basis for 'equality', or even, for that matter, no basis for why men _ought_ to be equal. The list goes on and on until there's no solid foundation in this world for any moral value and we're left with nothing, that is to say, Nihilism. Sam Harris basically ignores all this and says: 'lol science stronk!'
Yes, I believe that this channel should grow to the stars, but what problems would arise from that? We would probably get "egirls" and "eboys" that read 5 chapters of Nietzsche and thought "this guy makes a good point of nihilism, man, life doesn't matter so I'm going to be an a*shat because so." Am I gatekeeping? Maybe so. Just what I think though.
@@yeah4710 But getting the egirls and eboys allows them to move beyond those five chapters of Nietzsche by hearing that there is something more -- by having their belief in their own abilities challenged. I welcome anyone to channels like this. If they stick around it's because they are learning something. If they leave -- well, fine, but they probably won't unsubscribe and that boosts the channel.
I always thought about the name in a more philosophical manner, as if, even though he tries to achieve a truthful knowledge and understanding, this task always becomes harder and harder to do, and by the end of the day, his effort has amounted to no result, and he has to start again.
Everything is futile. Even if you manage to push the rock up the hill you'll come to realize that it was really just a futile act to find meaning, as you found no meaning once the task was completed. It's hypothetically possible that the entire world could be informed, but so what if it ever happens? The real futility isn't in informing people, it's actually in the reason you do it
Always flabbergasted at how much work you put into these. The research, the script, the animations, all my comments on your videos end up being the same: I love your content so much
"...and despite the ability for science to explain why and how things interact and exist, it is yet to be convincingly argued that science can tell us what we should do in any universal sense. This is perhaps the greatest issue of Sam Harris: that in his pursuit of a simplified and objective solution to our moral problems, he may find himself repeating the very same dogmatic biases that he has criticized so often in religious practice" MY FAV PART
@@Paradoxonification lmao the appeal to science as if science is a God of sorts. The video talks about Harris talking about worldviews that betray science. How the fuck do you betray science? Is it an organization one has sworn an oath to?
I like the way Harris described a basis for morality by imagining a universe where every conscious being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible (a hypothetical he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone")- if the words "evil" or "bad" can be objectively applied anywhere, it's there. There's literally no worse outcome. The thinking is that an objective moral compass will point in the opposite direction of that hypothetical.
@@vinny5638 The specific urge about my specific fret - yes ;) However to pass up an opportunity to converse with likeminded people was.. an urge I was unable to pass up. :)
I just recently got back on YT and damnn my friend, ur channel grew so big. Happy that many are now latching onto this once hidden gem of a channel. Keep the bangers coming!!
These videos on contemporary thinkers (if you can call them that) have been great. I really appreciate the balance, and objectivism you provide in your videos!
Very concise and accurate. There's too much emphasis on his criticisms however. Someone not familiar with Sam already, might disdain him after watching this video.
Science, although fact, is still man-made. It derives from the same neurological activity that fuels conclusions that Harris believes should tell us how we ought to live. And science is an ever-evolving field, so we'd have a hard time defining morality with that kind of fluidity. You also can't just draw a line somewhere in the middle when it comes to people's well-being, since every individual experiences reality in a different way and although some respones to our everydays might be similar they are never the same. "The world is far more complicated than he would like."
It's a dopmain response in your brain. What have you learned? Did you engage with the content or just consume it? Think for yourself. Make examples, maybe even play it through in your imagination.... Thats when your mind adapts and grows.. at least thats what is the most logical view for myself. No offense, just being conscious... ;)
loving these modern thinker videos, dont know how this channel aint more popular. Swear me and half my mates have come to these videos independtly, and yet time this channel aint getting the traction it deserves. just a matter of time i guess, keep it up lad
No idea where my long winded probably gibberish comment on religion went. Accidentally posted before I finished. Point being this: much harm is caused not by religious ideas and religions themselves, rather the perversion of their ideas, and the figureheads who used these religions to mislead followers into paths of destruction Religion has done great good in the world. It can provide the lonely, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the meek, with hope and strength in times of suffering. It doesn’t matter that San Harris thinks it’s a crock of shit. To the devout, its real and sacred and helps them move through life with dignity and hope, makes them stronger, and enables them to hold onto their humanity during the most hellish experiences. For every author of a great book about surviving suffering, there V are an uncounted number whose lives were made easier, and whose characters were strengthened, and whose self worth and humanity were galvanized by faith, their own, and /or others. Will we render meaningless the faith of Anne Frank because of her end? Or put her strength down to favorable neurobiology? That dishonors her, neurologically she is unique, and her religion, which gave her and countless others faith and hope and courage, and inspires the same in generations, may be biologically generated, but it is not preordained, and you cannot convince me that it is a bad thing.
Personally, I'm not afraid to admit that I am a huge fan of Sam Harris. I was raised in Islam and I found him in my young adult life when I began to doubt my faith. Although I disagree with his criticism and find his approach to be more problematic then it is helpful, I cannot deny his contribution did the general discourse on the matter or my on liberation. As an ex Muslim atheist, his sharp criticisms were a breath of fresh air. The Moral Landscape is generally what I believed to be the best approach towards morality in a secular worldview. As a mixed martial artist, I can empathize with his methodic way of thinking to achieve a specific concrete goal. I also appreciate his spreading of mindfulness through exercising meditation because it was secular meditation that help me confirm that prayer has no effect on my life. Secular meditation was the control group of the tests I was running and my life as I begin trying different religions to find the truth. I still practice meditation to this day and I do not miss religion one bit because of it and because of him. Sam Harris and his writings and podcasts help me find purpose and meaning when I felt I was losing them forever.
harris think the objectivity of morality is "as objective as" the objectivity of health. He doesn't need to resolve the is/ought issue. He is simply claiming science effectively objectively leads to a definition of morality that can be commonly agreed upon in most issues, and such morality of well being should be the one that matters... similar to the definition of health.
@Osman Oglu " Please due note that nothing is as black and white as being "good and bad" or "good vs bad" " Sam harris never makes such claim. Of course, there is morally grey area...similar to there are grey area for health (there can be tradeoff where better health is ambiguous. For instance, quality of health versus longevity of health).
@Osman Oglu Sam Harris is actually not a reductionist. I'm a physics grad student focusing on condensed matter physics myself. I can assure you that science doesn't mean reductionism AT ALL. Even the most foundationally discipline like physics, is NOT reductionist. You can create high-level phenomenological theories to explain things without invoking the details of, neurology in our context. There is a difference between "in principle" and "in practice". Sam Harris is saying that IN PRINCIPLE law of physics (and higher level laws of chemistry, biology, and neurosciences) can predict actions' consequences of well being. According to this objective relation between actions and well being, morality can be defined (and it is "as objective as" health). However, Sam Harris is not arguing we have to go back to quantum field theory to make prediction of actions. He is NOT a reductionist. He argues that from this foundation, we can create high-level theory of well being as a proxi, and people can agree upon it. For instance, from different types of studies we can find being gay doesn't have negative consequences on gays themselves and people around them (this study serve as a proxi). Then according to Harris moral framework, we can objectively conclude being gay is not immoral. You can have high-level empirical phenomelogical result (as proxi)...without using the reductionist law of physics to predict things.
@Osman Oglu "where did I say or even hint at that I believe that science is reductionist?" I thought your critic of sam harris is that he reduce everything to using law of physics to predict negative consequences on well being. I thought your critique is that this reductionist approach is in practical/impossible. If you mean this, then you are simply representing harris' idea wrong. But apparently you didn't mean this. You were not making an specific argument, you were simply making an accusation that Harris oversimplifies things... okay let's now look at your new arguments 1. here is your first specific argument: "Which is why you might believe that being a homophile does not pose any "negative consequences", but someone else would believe it does" Harris think we can find a commonly agreed upon parameters like happiness, peacefulness, and such...and we CHOOSE to value this (similar in health, we CHOOSE to value longevity and such). Once we agree upon these set of things, we can objectively show being gay has no negative consequences on well being. What you said about "someone else would believe it does" makes no sense. The whole point is we need to reduce complicated judgement of morality to a common set of basic agreed upon values. Can you give me one potentially way of how others being gay affect people's well being? Remember you can't just assert it does, you have to reduce to things that fundamentally affect your well being. 2. "Using simple "observations" as empirical data is not very wise. Using such "observations" to argue that, hence X must be good via proxy of this one simple assessment I personally observed, is bound to be wrong." That's how science works. People find old knowledge to be wrong and they can improve upon them. The more correction people find, the closer their proxi is too the exact result. This is an honest description of how human knoweldge progress. Trying to figure out an ultimate conclusion in one-go is just wishful thinking/ intellectual masturbation (if you are scientists, you would know this). Gradually approaching the truth is honest (not wishful thinking/lying to yourself) and IT WORKS. 3. "I had ingestion problems. I observed, empirically might I add, that smoking a fag resolved the issue, hence, smoking cigarettes is good for your health with no negative consequences via proxy of my empirical findings. Do you concur?" No. No one said your conclusion has to be simple like "smoking cigarettes is good for your health". It can be complicated like "smoking can be good if it can resolve negative consequences on your well being that is orignated from other health problem". If your situation can be demonstrated to occur to many people. Then we have empirical result that show smoking cigarette can be good in specific situation. Also you are showing Harris point here... you are showing health is also not absolutely objective (there are grey areas and there are trade offs). Harris is arguing morality (based on well being) can be as objective as health. In the sense, we can have a commonly agreed set of value and we can objective see how actions leads to those consequences, and we can make tradeoff and make health/moral judgement. Everything else you said are either claims...or repeatition of the 3 points I addressed here. Please address them one by one, if you have counter arguments.
Sam occupies this interesting space where he knows just enough about a subject and is eloquent enough to impress laypeople, but when you push him on literally anything or talk to any experts in philosophy/ethics/religion/history/neuroscience you find that there’s not much there there. The pivot to an app for meditation is pretty on brand for a ‘guru’ type. He’s good with rhetoric, not much else.
Yeah, actually referring to him as a Neuroscientist is an insult to Neuroscientists. He bought his PhD from a family friend and didn't even write the two papers he's credited as author on, according to statements his lab mates made to journalists. His mentor was a pretty big guy in the world of fMRI, so I'm sure he picked up some things, but he hasn't published since he left his program. Speaking as a Neuropsych PhD student, I don't know any other neuro folks that even know who he is, or if they do, they don't know he claims to be a Neuroscientist. He has the habit of gaining just enough credentials to say "I'm An AuThOrItY" without doing the actual work to be an authority on anything.
Really enjoyed how you demonstrated his argument against the 'bad side' of religion can come full circle showing the hypocrisy in an individual who critiques it and engages in similarly critiqued behavior and yet at the same time you remained open enough to acknowledge him as a potentially positive driving force for new ways of thinking about how to 'better' spirituality and religion in regards to their clear denials of metaphysics. I love this seemingly objective discourse you curate that allows the viewer cognitive space to internally debate without needing to immediately come to any conclusions in order to track what is explained.
I would like to say this demonstration is refreshing in a world still full of individuals who behave like they need to pick a side and defend it, so, thank you.
Like that the existence of the WPME scenario as an accepted endpoint of a spectrum of morality would simply be an "is" and would not substantiate the existence of an equal and opposite endpoint which would be considered a moral "ought"?
I would love for you to do an overview of eastern philosophy and specifically buddhism at some point. It's extremely fascinating stuff. While we westerners are still tackling the non-transcendent atheist worldview that is arising and how we can create new values, certain parts of Asia have made emptiness their home since a long time via zen buddhism. Aside from the buddha himself, less known figures (to non-bufdhists) like Nagarjuna and Dogen are amazing too. And it's interesting how something like zen buddhism brakes our western philosophical categories. Also someone who connects buddhism with brain science in a more intriguing way is Thomas Metzinger.
Personally I don't think Harris creates or spreads any islamophobia, especially on that Ben Affleck interview, I believe those where valid criticism of Islam, the same way someone would criticize Christianity or any other religion.
True. I wonder how many of those leftist Islam apologists have actually read Quran. Here in Iran, The majority of the younger generation are actually trying to spread Islamophobia, and we feel justified for doing so. There's very little to defend about Islam anyway.
@@arumyn3070 when it comes to the western world a lot of people are bigoted against Muslims, in the case of the USA those people are mostly conservative Christians, being bigoted towards a certain group of people is clearly a bad thing, however the same can said about countries that have a majority Muslim population, the governments of these countries are bigoted towards people who don't conform to their beliefs ( i.e Kurds, shia's if it's a Sunni majority country and vice versa), and I believe it's fair to say that most people that practice Islam as a religion are conservative with their beliefs and ideas, so there's not much difference between a conservative Christian and a conservative Muslim.
I know he isn’t respected in academic circles but Harris actually got me interested in philosophy of mind when I came across one of his talks on free will.
@@terrorismisokaysometimes because he makes basic mistakes, use arguments that have been "debunked" and ignores an entire field and use "because it must" as a pillar ua-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/v-deo.html
@@RetiredInThailand ye, feel like a lot of people initially get interested in mainstream public speakers only to discover their guy have no idea what hes talking about, i think its a part of the journey
@@Yellow.1844 Oh wow here I find myself arguing in the comment section at 3 am. However, I really feel the need to stand by my man Harris. I actually read his stuff before looking into his reputation, and I find his clarity of thinking refreshing. I think people often judge him too early, tryna counterbalance that a bit.
I'm not a huge fan of him, his interactions on twitter have revealed his incredibly sensitivity to opposing ideas, he blocks anyone with the slightest of critiques, no matter how respectful the opposer is
The question Harris asks is "Are we good people? or evil. But every side in every conflict ever has believed themselves to be noble. At the end of the day his test is not objective but subjective.
I appreciate Harris' takes on science and morality, because it provides a unique outlook on philosophy that is needed to encourage discussion. However, I find Harris' takes on Islam to be deplorable. Sam Harris argues towards the idea Muslim immigration should be repressed with bogus opinions like the fact that they're not willing to accept our cultural norms. I would like the raise the point that they don't have to accept any cultural norms, they don't even need to speak our language. A good Muslim is one who stays Muslim, after all. As a high schooler enrolled in JROTC, there are many Muslims in my class despite American aggression against Muslim nations. Our Cadet Battalion Commander is Muslim, and her brother who is also my friend is just like everybody else, except for his refusal to eat pork at a ball one time. This goes to prove that Muslims do integrate within Europe and America the same way white people do into darker countries, with dignity and grace but also with acceptance in hopes of having a better future in foreign lands. Sam Harris' lies repeat old white man's burden talk but with a cynical twist; the argument used to justify colonialism in and around the 1800's. It was once thought that white people simply had to accept their racial and religious superiority and to try to rule other races for their own good, while Harris believes basically the same but thinks the best way to coexist with Muslims is to eradicate their presence in western society. These arguments are genocidal and objectively wrong at worst, and repetitions of old white man's burden rhetoric at best.
Interesting way of making animations. Looks easy. And I can draw, kind of. You've inspired me buy a graphic tablet and start my own channel now. Different topics though.
I won't lie I'm not a fan of Sam Harris. I think he's an intelligent guy that's extremely rigid in his views, but mostly I just find him very disrespectful and condescending to others with differing opinions. Maybe I've not seen enough of his work, but have struggled to appreciate his views, even if I think he has some interesting points.
Nah, this is a bug/feature of his brand of atheism. I agree with the sentiment that ideas dont need to be respected. However there are ways to communicate that stuff without being a bad atheist stereotype.
You shouldn't have included the Ben Affleck interview in this video. He had nothing of value to say and completely embarrassed himself, the way you presented it wasn't fair, even if it was brief.
Great video! I've always had a like/hate relationship with him and this video reminded me of the whys. I know it's a long shot but a Bookchin video would be amazing!
I have to say that this video is a genuinely informational video that presented a balanced and intersectional look at Sam Harris. I thought that he was no more than a slightly more intellectual Jimmy Dore before watching, but I now believe that he is a nuanced thinker and not a grifter by any means. Great video!
Sam Harris may be a sloppy philosopher but he's at least using his persuasive skills to bring a more equal, secular, and scientific viewpoint into the mainstream.
I’d say that whilst his metaphysical claims and ethical claims may be a bit lacking, I think he really does well when it comes to self help and politics. He provides a very pragmatic way of self improvement based in science whilst also not shying away from helpful spirituality. When it comes to politics I also find him to be rather introspective. He avoids falling into the pitfalls of the left whilst also solidly arguing for liberalism (European meaning) and strong public services.
Thank you for this. I've been an in and out fan of Sam. I keep hoping that Sam Harris would come out of his own conformation bias and see the struggle from the left's perspective a bit better. When I read the Moral Landscape I came away with a feeling of a book that was rushed and not thourouly thought out. He unwillingly (I guess) became beloved by conservative voices because of his writing and thinking. His denouncing of himself from the IDW will not win over a left that routinely clubbers him on Twitter. What Sam probably needs is another trip to Nepal to meditate. I root for him but his extreme hatred for the left is his moral failing which is a contradiction of himself.
The Ben Affleck-Sam Harris debate is the most hilarious thing I have ever seen. Afflict got lot of hate after that becausehe was not well read on something he was arguing about. It was sort of virtue signaling. But I laughed alot😂😂
Harris also wrote a book along with Maajid Nawaz titled "Islam and The Future of Tolerance". Maajid Nawaz was, as he calls it, a radical Islamist (nonviolent) who was imprisoned in Egypt shortly after 9/11 for work with Hizb ut-Tahrir and has since cut these ties and tempered his extremist views now believing in and advocating for a secular view of Islam. The book is a conversation between the two about Islam's future in our modern world. I thought it was weird that this wasn't brought up in this video going over Sams career as this was an important showing of what Sam believes when it comes to Islam, its future, and the people who get caught up in the extreme views of religion. It shows Sams's willingness to work with and give a platform to reformed members of extremist ideology who want peaceful coexistence. I think a lot of people tend to judge Sam based on other people's opinions about him and don't go and check out his work themselves. He's far more reasonable than some of his inflammatory quotes make him out to be. While this video was a decent overview there's quite a bit left out and not given its fair shake. The video's author also has his own biases baked into a few of the points in the video. All understandable as this is just a quick overview of a lot of dense topics and no one is fully objective when doing something like this.
I always thought that Sam Harris was a Scientist who spoke out against religion. This shows how effective his self branding and marketing is. In reality, he is a philosopher for the masses, who dabbled in psychedelics and Eastern thought before cashing in on being a celebrity Atheist. His brief foray in Neuroscience provided him with credentials as an authority. Hats off to the guy for the amount of work he put in to this, but we should always remember that he is an Atheist missionary first and a scientist second.
Great Video! I think his plattforming of several thinkers warning against advanced AI is also important to mention about him. I second the suggestion, that you should do a piece on Noam Chomsky.
@@LibraryofGnosis Yeah, and even worse, in place of that other 10% of cakey goodness he poured himself a big glass of 'singling out a group of people to blame'...
@@vitstwo7623 Islam, if he can stretch logic to manage it in any way, he has. I'm not gonna go so far as to call the man a bigot or anything, it never seems /hateful/ to me, just like a solution he trys to fit into problems.
@@reidwallace4258 I don’t know if I’m looking into it too much, but you and the comments hating on Harris for what he said about Islam seem very sheepish, like when someone mentions anything about Feminism and it’s suddenly sexist or something. Like people hear the words “Islam” and “bad” and suddenly Harris is a Trump rally Incel. From this video alone, it seems like all Harris said was that the outdated cultural values of Islam (like how they treat women for instance) have no place in modern society. I read one of Harris’ book, but otherwise I don’t know much about him so I’m not really a fanboy, but I feel like people are acting sheepish so I wanted to comment.
Great video, although I'm not sure if your last point on Sam's philosophy not answering what we should do in any unversal sense falling into the same problem as religion makes sense. His approach is not to be prescriptive about what we should do, but a guiding compass for at least what we shouldn't do. Agree that there's still a lot of white space between that and some of the more comforts of dogmatic religion, but it at least allows for flexibility and hopefully driving towards better local maxima on step at a time
You should do a video on GI Gurdjieff I find that not many people are aware of his ideas and when they are they're usually filtered through the prism of Ouspensky which while certainly related is more Ouspensky's philosophy than Gurdjieff's.
So basically he is a utilitarian who thinks we can consistently and reliably define, measure, and recreate situations that maximize wellbeing. Despite that the same thing can be greatly pleasing to one person and torture to another. Some people love the isolation of living out in the woods of Alaska. Some love the business of crowds in cities. Both of these people would hate to swap lives.
Thanks for including the critiques. All of them are correct. Sam is really your standard positivist with a twist of non-duality and non-self, meaning he has all the hallmarks of positivist errors while acting like a poor man's Derek Parfit (he only gets to this status owing to the probable wisdom brought by years in India and Nepal). There's a reason why positivism is a dead term, but he just revives it with all its flaws and its wounds, like a zombie. As Blackburn says, all he really does is bad philosophy, which by his account should include his 11 years of wasted time in India and Nepal, and this leads him easily to attribution error, which is a thing that religious people do when they get prejudiced to other sects, denominations, religions, or nonreligious person, which can otherwise be known as "turning the other cheek only for people you already favor." If anyone wants to listen to a philosopher-scientist who is not a bit of a joke (no matter how sincere Harris is in his secular humanism, this will remain true), Daniel Dennett is good, so is Tim Maudlin, Massimo Pigliucci, and a few others. His "word game" critique is an excuse to not do due diligence, like the kid who says the dog ate his homework. As for Islam, he's only correct, because he gives an ahistorical and incomplete picture, and the critique of him is also correct. He tends to dilute ethical issues into simplicity and he becomes as blind to his own dogmatism as the Islamists. Also, Ben Affleck is just a smudge liberal, who in that exchange with Harris, proved Harris correct in his blindspot even as he was pointing out obliquely Harris's dogmatism. Lastly, what is wrong with Harris is that he hasn't grappled with the Two Dogmas of Empiricism like Quine, to which Davidson added a Third Dogma, unlike Daniel Dennett who did the relevant intellectual hard work. Quine and Dennett are empiricists, and Davidson is a rationalist. At the very least, Dennett himself has learned thanks to recent good science, that cultural values are not universal, and thus one cannot be paternalistic to other cultures without risking being imperialistic, which is a fundamental flaw that many secular humanists, atheists, and wannabe naturalists still possess.
I think Sam is spot on with his responses to the mentioned intellectuals. They repeatedly fail to grasp Sam's point, despite his best efforts to explain, and he is usually a great communicator. I think the intellectuals critizising him are engaging in sophistication for it's own sake, and/or are blinded by their own theories, failing to see how they apply to the real world. Let me try with an arrogant analogy, trying to succeed where Sam fails: Sam and his friend Dennet want to cross a busy road, holding a sheet of glass between them. They both see what they think is a good moment to cross, and start walking. Upon reaching the middle of the road, Dennet stops. "Why did you stop?" Sam asks. "I'm unsure if we should continue" Dennet responds. Taken aback and feeling increasingly unsafe by the second, Sam blurts out: "It might be unsafe to continue, but it sure as **** is unsafe to stand here! Let's go!" Dennet looks at Sam with clear annoyance. "You don't know that with 100 percent confidence!" says Dennet. "Besides, you are making an aweful lot of assumptions." "What?!" says Sam, unable to belive what he is hearing. Dennet rolls his eyes and explains: "You arrogantly assume I want to live, and that I do not want to take risks in my life. Do you know all the effects crossing the street will have on my life? Nobody can know that. This isn't something science can determine." Sam stands frozen in disbelief and horror, but Dennet keeps TALKING. "Besides, can we really say that life is worth living? You cannot deduce what we SHOULD do, from what IS! My preferences may not be your preferences, SAM. I think we shou.." BAM! A speeding car hits them both and they die. --- Notice how everything Dennet is saying is philosophically correct, but also how he still fails to grasp the obvious need to get OUT OF THE ****** STREET. (Daniel Dennet seems like a really cozy, good guy in real life, but he does annoy me, so I don't feel super bad portraying him this unrealistically bad) Put as best as I can: If we are to have any meaningful political dialogue, we have to agree on our shared preferences. Locally, regionally, globally. Science and philosophy can help us find, clarify and articulate these, but will probably never directly prescribe them. Once these are in place however, the rest IS actual SCIENCE. AKA, the best tool we have to accomplish anything with defined goals. And while both the goals and the answers might never have the clarity of 1+1=2, and might be constantly changing, science is nevertheless the best tool we have to do it with. And the absurd thing is, we ALREADY do this. Everywhere, all the time, to a greater and lesser extent. It just haven't been made explicit before. Awareness, acceptance, and successful implementation of this fact is paramount to future human flurishing. That is, to fully understand everything about humans/life with all the neuances, wierd contradictions and quirks they have, work hard as heck, trying not to fool ourselves, using the best tools we have available, to create our own best reality. That's my opinion, I think this is Sam's opinion, and I think this is the reason why he pushes it so passionately.
I think the actual wizard is the best one, plus the more cool and useful, then the trosko neocon he was really good debating, then Dawkins he was the meme inventor.
I said this some time ago and i will say it again: I am very grateful to be contemporan and live in an era era when i have access to such an incredible thinker as Sam Harris. He cleared my mind, my anxieties and expanded my horizons in a way that no other thinker did.
It's funny how so many 'public philosophers' don't actually have postgraduate degrees in philosophy, but other subjects like neuroscience or psychology.
@@priyanshusen2973 Subjects originally weren't separated as they are now, and fields like physics and biology came under the class of 'natural philosophy'. However, nowadays, doing a phd in neuroscience does not mean that you will have studied any of the literature of ethics for example. If Harris only discussed the philosophy of mind, that could be justifiable, but venturing into moral philosophy when you don't have a background in it is questionable. Same goes for Jordan Peterson, his phd in psychology doesn't mean that he's an expert on Marxism/postmodernism and yet he seems to hold some strong opinions on it.
@@tdogg1515 yes Peterson does have his PhD in psychology however he was very focused on the psychology surrounding Marxism and how the psychology of the individual led to those ideologies and revolution. So I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have an expertise in that field.
I have a great deal of sympathy for sam harris, and I consider myself an atheist, but I'm interested in how someone would rationally explain this experience I recently had: I dreamed about a crow trying to break into my flat. Every time I opened the door it was frantically flying around and making strange noises. I said to my neighbour that it made dog noises. Well, more things happened, and I eventually woke up and texted my dream to a friend, as I usually do. I stood up, ate breakfast and checked my phone again, and watched the videoclip my mum had shared from a local newspaper site with our family facebook chat. The video was of a crow barking like a dog. Totally random. I've had experiences like this before. I've known very specific facts about real life before they happen. I once dreamed the specific age difference in years, months and days between me and my crush a year before I actually got to know her birthday and it occured to me that my dream about her and numbers that I dotted down a year before might actually fit with the age difference. It did, exactly. My jaw dropped, and it contributed to me question everything I thought I understood about reality for a few years, until I retured to a scientific and evolutionary understanding of consciousness. Now these experiences seem random, but trancend time. What is this phenomenah? It has really made me wonder, because I can't explain this with current science. It doesn't suggest diety to me, but it has made me wonder that matter and time might only be an illusion, or that consciousness is the real fabric of the world. A kind of information matrix. I can't make it fit with anything other than new age spirituality, but that again doesn't fit my worldview, either. Can anybody shed some light?
I love how you portray everyone holistically, presenting reasonable criticism for every individual’s ideas. The good, the bad and sometimes the ugly.
Such a great content creator, golden find.
I love how the intellectuals being discussed recently are people that are still alive and active in their fields
Sam Harris being an intellectual is debatable, his book is a joke
ua-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/v-deo.html
lol imagine if Sisyphus ended these videos by accurately predicting how these guys die
Cuck philosophy are just furious Marxists.
@Irish Jester
Your username conflicts deeply with how well thoughtout, intelligent and reasonable your comment appears to be.
@Christian Bordelon
It's like anything. Like Sam Harris is Harry Styles and Neitzsche is Alice in Chains.
I'm really loving these videos you've been putting out. Can you do one on Noam Chomsky?
Yes! Do Noam Chomsky!
Kind of shocked we haven't got Chomsky yet, he's probably the most popular living philosopher if not the most important
I imagine there might be a 'build up' to Mr. Chomsky.
yes please!
yessssss
You drew Sam Harris like a Yu-Gi-Oh character about to play a trap card which is unironically how he actually looks
Sam Harris is a real life example of the "Dreamworks face"
Please watch ' 9/11 explained in 5 Minutes' . The video was released in 2016. And of course US govt is innocent right? 🤦♀️
@@FreePalestine_____ wtf?
Do Chomsky next. I like Chomsky's American Imperialism idea and geopolitics opinions. I would love to hear your take on it.
Please watch ' 9/11 explained in 5 Minutes' . The video was released in 2016 but very less views. And of course US govt is innocent right? 🤦♀️
@@FreePalestine_____ when did they say america is innocent lol
Your essays on modern thinkers are nuanced and well informed. Great job!
His lack of knowledge and disregard for philosophy leads him to the bias of thinking that the truths of spirituality and morality are either determined scientifically, or are either completely relativistic and void of any meaning, which is a point that lacks any sort of nuance. I liked him a few years back but lost interest when I saw that his ideas were already expressed hundreds of years ago and were already pretty well criticized back then too.
His meditation stuff is pretty cool tho
but they are determined scientifically. Because science is.. well everything. And the truths of spirituality are part of everything just the same. Science simply explains the natural world in ways we can understand. The truths of spirituality are part of that natural world.
@@Fuar11 Not all knowledge and not all facts are scientific.
There is no amount of empirical testings you could do to determine that science is the only form of knowledge, and empirical tests don't tell you why a state is preferable to another. If you deem something to be good, it wasn't neutrally derived from hypothetico-deductive method, you'd have to have assumptions about why things are good or bad, even when it comes to why science is more valuable than other things. A value judgement like that on science isn't derived from just empirical testing either, you'd have to get it from a form of dialectical rationality.
Not everything rational is scientific.
@@Fuar11 you cannot define morality scientifically. Science is a tool for predicting the behavior and features of the natural world. But it is just one tool in a whole set. By only using Science as our reference point for everything, we take a large chunk of nuance and depth from our lives.
@@Fuar11 you just made a declaration of faith by saying science is everything.
@Christian Bordelon Every single one of you completely misunderstood my comment
God bless Chomsky one day is arguing with Foucault other day is arguing with everyone who invites him to a podcast
Most down-to-earth philosopher today
Love the perma-smirk you included with his doodle.
This meant a lot to me in a time when my mother is turning to religion a lot more in her fight against cancer and I am really trying to figure out what "doing good" means in my own life. Thank you :)
Harris actually has nothing to do with Zen.
Might be more accurate to use the term "mindfulness " since that is the genre of meditation he espouses.
yea didn't see anything zen about him whatsoever
To be at ease with being is a trademark of Zen, is it not?
Harris is very occupied with the world of phenomena. From the perspective of traditional Ch'an or Zen precepts he is engaged in fantasy and delusion (妄想/虚幻).
In terms of mindfulness, I'd say he is a fairly good promoter of modern western approaches to functional meditation. People tend to misuse Chinese cultural terms like Ch'an and Dao. That was really the energy of my comment, not a criticism of Harris at all.
He mainly practices Dzogchen
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe Zen is a specific sect of Buddhism originating in Japan.
He's never been to Japan to learn afaik.
It was said he he learner primarily in India, so not Zen.
You forgot to say, " If nobody can really agree on what someone has said, have they said anything at all?"
It's too good of a catchphrase to let go so soon.
it's wierd seeing intellectuals i grew up with being talked about like this. almost as surreal as seeing technology you grew up with behind panes of glass in a museum
Zizek was the one that got me out of guard. Maybe cause he was the first one of this series.
Hearing him bring up Sam's exit from the IDW felt most weird for me. That was one month ago.
ua-cam.com/video/lmcdu6B_YUU/v-deo.html
The great quickening preceding the singularity.
@@jordant.teeterson3100 is this a terrence mckenna reference?
He is what Nietzsche picks out and destroys in Beyond Good and Evil.
Edit: I see that I have caused a lot of people to be confused since I have not specified what I mean. I had the part "we scientists" from "Beyond Good and Evil" in mind. So many people have, in some way or another, outlined what I mean in the replies.
I could get into this. Any elucidation would be excellent.
could you please elaborate?
@@orangedalmatian cosigned
Elaborate!!! 4 the ppl
Sam Harris, despite being an atheist, still grounds his 'scientific' ethics in the moral feelings that come from Christianity. Humanism is just Christianity without the God to sanction it.
Edit:
He'd probably agree with the assertion "God is dead", but wouldn't think all too deeply about the consequences this has on the old moral worldview we inherited. Take for example: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Without a 'creator', this moral 'truth' is not at all "self-evident". Without the idea of a 'soul', which every man could be in equal possession of, there is no steady basis for 'equality', or even, for that matter, no basis for why men _ought_ to be equal. The list goes on and on until there's no solid foundation in this world for any moral value and we're left with nothing, that is to say, Nihilism.
Sam Harris basically ignores all this and says: 'lol science stronk!'
Commenting for the algorithm
Replying for the satisfaction of the algorithm
I like this idea.
Yes, I believe that this channel should grow to the stars, but what problems would arise from that?
We would probably get "egirls" and "eboys" that read 5 chapters of Nietzsche and thought "this guy makes a good point of nihilism, man, life doesn't matter so I'm going to be an a*shat because so."
Am I gatekeeping? Maybe so.
Just what I think though.
Yep
@@yeah4710 But getting the egirls and eboys allows them to move beyond those five chapters of Nietzsche by hearing that there is something more -- by having their belief in their own abilities challenged. I welcome anyone to channels like this. If they stick around it's because they are learning something. If they leave -- well, fine, but they probably won't unsubscribe and that boosts the channel.
You do a really great job of covering figures who have been villainized or lionized in an accurate and even-handed way.
Does the channel name of "Sisyphus" imply that there is a percieved futility in informing people? If so, lol.
I always thought about the name in a more philosophical manner, as if, even though he tries to achieve a truthful knowledge and understanding, this task always becomes harder and harder to do, and by the end of the day, his effort has amounted to no result, and he has to start again.
Everything is futile. Even if you manage to push the rock up the hill you'll come to realize that it was really just a futile act to find meaning, as you found no meaning once the task was completed. It's hypothetically possible that the entire world could be informed, but so what if it ever happens? The real futility isn't in informing people, it's actually in the reason you do it
For me it’s simply a way of showing appreciation towards Camus. But idk
You're hitting every controversial figure recently lmao respect
Noam said "get your weight up bro"
Always flabbergasted at how much work you put into these. The research, the script, the animations, all my comments on your videos end up being the same: I love your content so much
"...and despite the ability for science to explain why and how things interact and exist, it is yet to be convincingly argued that science can tell us what we should do in any universal sense. This is perhaps the greatest issue of Sam Harris: that in his pursuit of a simplified and objective solution to our moral problems, he may find himself repeating the very same dogmatic biases that he has criticized so often in religious practice" MY FAV PART
Agree, I was growing frustrated by his very obvious bias, glad it was mentioned
At what point did he appeal to authority as his foundation for morality? Completely stupid point.
@@Paradoxonification lmao the appeal to science as if science is a God of sorts. The video talks about Harris talking about worldviews that betray science. How the fuck do you betray science? Is it an organization one has sworn an oath to?
That thumbnail is inaccurate; everyone knows Sam Harris would never smile.
BLUE STEEL
I like the way Harris described a basis for morality by imagining a universe where every conscious being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible (a hypothetical he calls "the worst possible misery for everyone")- if the words "evil" or "bad" can be objectively applied anywhere, it's there. There's literally no worse outcome. The thinking is that an objective moral compass will point in the opposite direction of that hypothetical.
"The Dzogchen Neuroscientist" if you want to be pedantic.
I was fretting over Zen.
Then I let the urge to comment about it drift down the stream on a leaf.
@@aydenr5467 ... or did you?
@@vinny5638 The specific urge about my specific fret - yes ;)
However to pass up an opportunity to converse with likeminded people was.. an urge I was unable to pass up. :)
@@aydenr5467 And one you should never pass up indeed :) much love
Oh I do
Hm, at first I didn't understand but I liked these videos about contemporary controversial thinkers, thanks
@5:25 That stickfigure Peterson is absolutely brilliant! :)
Yeeessss
Elaborate!
This was one of your most informative and comprehensive videos. Thank you Sisyphus. You‘ve given great insight!
I just recently got back on YT and damnn my friend, ur channel grew so big. Happy that many are now latching onto this once hidden gem of a channel. Keep the bangers coming!!
These videos on contemporary thinkers (if you can call them that) have been great. I really appreciate the balance, and objectivism you provide in your videos!
I see, Sisyphus is really fond of modern philosophers.
Is this sarcastic?
If it's not, he's just been uploading a lot of these videos lately
wouldn't really say he is "fond"
@@joostietoost4220 I am just making a joke boi
Nah its not on him, Harris is in no way a philosopher, hes just a public speaker
"philosophers."
sisy didn't even entertain the bell curve for a moment
So who's next, Sam Hyde?
Bro I would love Sam hyde, or better yet conner O malley
@@zuthula3847 meaningless to you!
@@zuthula3847 cringe
@@zuthula3847 Me big brain, me only listen popular big men!!
Not sure it’s a good idea to give publicity to mass murderers
Very concise and accurate. There's too much emphasis on his criticisms however. Someone not familiar with Sam already, might disdain him after watching this video.
Yeah, but that's academics for you lol
I thought it was only me who thought like this... As a muslim viewer, yes i have no choice but to wish to disdain him.
@@Vy-if3zdThe question is,do you WILL to disdain him?
I mean what else do you want? A video that only praises him and calls any criticism against him an unfair attack or antisemitic?
That "adds to the boredom of the universe" comment might just be the most arrogant thing ive ever read in my life.
Science, although fact, is still man-made. It derives from the same neurological activity that fuels conclusions that Harris believes should tell us how we ought to live. And science is an ever-evolving field, so we'd have a hard time defining morality with that kind of fluidity. You also can't just draw a line somewhere in the middle when it comes to people's well-being, since every individual experiences reality in a different way and although some respones to our everydays might be similar they are never the same. "The world is far more complicated than he would like."
y e s !
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS! I always feel like I learn so much.
It's a dopmain response in your brain. What have you learned? Did you engage with the content or just consume it? Think for yourself. Make examples, maybe even play it through in your imagination.... Thats when your mind adapts and grows.. at least thats what is the most logical view for myself.
No offense, just being conscious... ;)
loving these modern thinker videos, dont know how this channel aint more popular. Swear me and half my mates have come to these videos independtly, and yet time this channel aint getting the traction it deserves. just a matter of time i guess, keep it up lad
This is really well done. Balanced, thorough, and thoughtful. Thank you for creating this.
This was insanely well made, nice job.
No idea where my long winded probably gibberish comment on religion went. Accidentally posted before I finished. Point being this: much harm is caused not by religious ideas and religions themselves, rather the perversion of their ideas, and the figureheads who used these religions to mislead followers into paths of destruction
Religion has done great good in the world. It can provide the lonely, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the meek, with hope and strength in times of suffering. It doesn’t matter that San Harris thinks it’s a crock of shit. To the devout, its real and sacred and helps them move through life with dignity and hope, makes them stronger, and enables them to hold onto their humanity during the most hellish experiences. For every author of a great book about surviving suffering, there V are an uncounted number whose lives were made easier, and whose characters were strengthened, and whose self worth and humanity were galvanized by faith, their own, and /or others.
Will we render meaningless the faith of Anne Frank because of her end? Or put her strength down to favorable neurobiology? That dishonors her, neurologically she is unique, and her religion, which gave her and countless others faith and hope and courage, and inspires the same in generations, may be biologically generated, but it is not preordained, and you cannot convince me that it is a bad thing.
NICE video man, I especially love how you tackle these contemporary figures from all sides, the result is very constructive in my opinion. Good job!
Personally, I'm not afraid to admit that I am a huge fan of Sam Harris. I was raised in Islam and I found him in my young adult life when I began to doubt my faith. Although I disagree with his criticism and find his approach to be more problematic then it is helpful, I cannot deny his contribution did the general discourse on the matter or my on liberation. As an ex Muslim atheist, his sharp criticisms were a breath of fresh air. The Moral Landscape is generally what I believed to be the best approach towards morality in a secular worldview. As a mixed martial artist, I can empathize with his methodic way of thinking to achieve a specific concrete goal. I also appreciate his spreading of mindfulness through exercising meditation because it was secular meditation that help me confirm that prayer has no effect on my life. Secular meditation was the control group of the tests I was running and my life as I begin trying different religions to find the truth. I still practice meditation to this day and I do not miss religion one bit because of it and because of him. Sam Harris and his writings and podcasts help me find purpose and meaning when I felt I was losing them forever.
Sucks 2 b u
The problem I have with Harris's solution to the moral problem is that it gives no reasons to why the wellbeing of conscious creatures is good
He addresses this. It’s good by definition. If you think your own well-being isn’t necessarily good then you need therapy, not philosophy.
harris think the objectivity of morality is "as objective as" the objectivity of health. He doesn't need to resolve the is/ought issue. He is simply claiming science effectively objectively leads to a definition of morality that can be commonly agreed upon in most issues, and such morality of well being should be the one that matters... similar to the definition of health.
@Osman Oglu
" Please due note that nothing is as black and white as being "good and bad" or "good vs bad" "
Sam harris never makes such claim. Of course, there is morally grey area...similar to there are grey area for health (there can be tradeoff where better health is ambiguous. For instance, quality of health versus longevity of health).
@Osman Oglu
Sam Harris is actually not a reductionist. I'm a physics grad student focusing on condensed matter physics myself. I can assure you that science doesn't mean reductionism AT ALL. Even the most foundationally discipline like physics, is NOT reductionist.
You can create high-level phenomenological theories to explain things without invoking the details of, neurology in our context.
There is a difference between "in principle" and "in practice".
Sam Harris is saying that IN PRINCIPLE law of physics (and higher level laws of chemistry, biology, and neurosciences) can predict actions' consequences of well being. According to this objective relation between actions and well being, morality can be defined (and it is "as objective as" health).
However, Sam Harris is not arguing we have to go back to quantum field theory to make prediction of actions. He is NOT a reductionist. He argues that from this foundation, we can create high-level theory of well being as a proxi, and people can agree upon it.
For instance, from different types of studies we can find being gay doesn't have negative consequences on gays themselves and people around them (this study serve as a proxi). Then according to Harris moral framework, we can objectively conclude being gay is not immoral.
You can have high-level empirical phenomelogical result (as proxi)...without using the reductionist law of physics to predict things.
@Osman Oglu
"where did I say or even hint at that I believe that science is reductionist?" I thought your critic of sam harris is that he reduce everything to using law of physics to predict negative consequences on well being. I thought your critique is that this reductionist approach is in practical/impossible.
If you mean this, then you are simply representing harris' idea wrong.
But apparently you didn't mean this. You were not making an specific argument, you were simply making an accusation that Harris oversimplifies things...
okay let's now look at your new arguments
1. here is your first specific argument: "Which is why you might believe that being a homophile does not pose any "negative consequences", but someone else would believe it does"
Harris think we can find a commonly agreed upon parameters like happiness, peacefulness, and such...and we CHOOSE to value this (similar in health, we CHOOSE to value longevity and such). Once we agree upon these set of things, we can objectively show being gay has no negative consequences on well being.
What you said about "someone else would believe it does" makes no sense. The whole point is we need to reduce complicated judgement of morality to a common set of basic agreed upon values.
Can you give me one potentially way of how others being gay affect people's well being? Remember you can't just assert it does, you have to reduce to things that fundamentally affect your well being.
2. "Using simple "observations" as empirical data is not very wise. Using such "observations" to argue that, hence X must be good via proxy of this one simple assessment I personally observed, is bound to be wrong."
That's how science works. People find old knowledge to be wrong and they can improve upon them. The more correction people find, the closer their proxi is too the exact result.
This is an honest description of how human knoweldge progress. Trying to figure out an ultimate conclusion in one-go is just wishful thinking/ intellectual masturbation (if you are scientists, you would know this). Gradually approaching the truth is honest (not wishful thinking/lying to yourself) and IT WORKS.
3. "I had ingestion problems. I observed, empirically might I add, that smoking a fag resolved the issue, hence, smoking cigarettes is good for your health with no negative consequences via proxy of my empirical findings.
Do you concur?"
No. No one said your conclusion has to be simple like "smoking cigarettes is good for your health". It can be complicated like "smoking can be good if it can resolve negative consequences on your well being that is orignated from other health problem".
If your situation can be demonstrated to occur to many people. Then we have empirical result that show smoking cigarette can be good in specific situation.
Also you are showing Harris point here... you are showing health is also not absolutely objective (there are grey areas and there are trade offs). Harris is arguing morality (based on well being) can be as objective as health. In the sense, we can have a commonly agreed set of value and we can objective see how actions leads to those consequences, and we can make tradeoff and make health/moral judgement.
Everything else you said are either claims...or repeatition of the 3 points I addressed here. Please address them one by one, if you have counter arguments.
Sam occupies this interesting space where he knows just enough about a subject and is eloquent enough to impress laypeople, but when you push him on literally anything or talk to any experts in philosophy/ethics/religion/history/neuroscience you find that there’s not much there there. The pivot to an app for meditation is pretty on brand for a ‘guru’ type. He’s good with rhetoric, not much else.
This comes to mind: ua-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/v-deo.html
@LiL Speng accurate. Or maybe atheist Deepak. Regardless, it’s a marketable brand.
Yeah, actually referring to him as a Neuroscientist is an insult to Neuroscientists. He bought his PhD from a family friend and didn't even write the two papers he's credited as author on, according to statements his lab mates made to journalists. His mentor was a pretty big guy in the world of fMRI, so I'm sure he picked up some things, but he hasn't published since he left his program. Speaking as a Neuropsych PhD student, I don't know any other neuro folks that even know who he is, or if they do, they don't know he claims to be a Neuroscientist. He has the habit of gaining just enough credentials to say "I'm An AuThOrItY" without doing the actual work to be an authority on anything.
@@wjpmitchell3 sounds about right.
Harris looks like the lovechild of Ben Stiller and The Pepsi Corporation
Really enjoyed how you demonstrated his argument against the 'bad side' of religion can come full circle showing the hypocrisy in an individual who critiques it and engages in similarly critiqued behavior and yet at the same time you remained open enough to acknowledge him as a potentially positive driving force for new ways of thinking about how to 'better' spirituality and religion in regards to their clear denials of metaphysics. I love this seemingly objective discourse you curate that allows the viewer cognitive space to internally debate without needing to immediately come to any conclusions in order to track what is explained.
I would like to say this demonstration is refreshing in a world still full of individuals who behave like they need to pick a side and defend it, so, thank you.
I feel like the out/is problem is where Sam's claims are at their weakest. It has always bugged me.
Like that the existence of the WPME scenario as an accepted endpoint of a spectrum of morality would simply be an "is" and would not substantiate the existence of an equal and opposite endpoint which would be considered a moral "ought"?
I would love for you to do an overview of eastern philosophy and specifically buddhism at some point. It's extremely fascinating stuff. While we westerners are still tackling the non-transcendent atheist worldview that is arising and how we can create new values, certain parts of Asia have made emptiness their home since a long time via zen buddhism. Aside from the buddha himself, less known figures (to non-bufdhists) like Nagarjuna and Dogen are amazing too. And it's interesting how something like zen buddhism brakes our western philosophical categories. Also someone who connects buddhism with brain science in a more intriguing way is Thomas Metzinger.
Personally I don't think Harris creates or spreads any islamophobia, especially on that Ben Affleck interview, I believe those where valid criticism of Islam, the same way someone would criticize Christianity or any other religion.
Naah dude
True. I wonder how many of those leftist Islam apologists have actually read Quran. Here in Iran, The majority of the younger generation are actually trying to spread Islamophobia, and we feel justified for doing so. There's very little to defend about Islam anyway.
Islamophobia is a good thing. Spread it all over!
@@arumyn3070 theres 1.8 billion muslims 😂. If they were all following horrible ideas I don't think the remaining billions would sleep at night.
@@arumyn3070 when it comes to the western world a lot of people are bigoted against Muslims, in the case of the USA those people are mostly conservative Christians, being bigoted towards a certain group of people is clearly a bad thing, however the same can said about countries that have a majority Muslim population, the governments of these countries are bigoted towards people who don't conform to their beliefs ( i.e Kurds, shia's if it's a Sunni majority country and vice versa), and I believe it's fair to say that most people that practice Islam as a religion are conservative with their beliefs and ideas, so there's not much difference between a conservative Christian and a conservative Muslim.
Good essay on Ben Stiller. Have you thought of doing one on Sam Harris?
I know he isn’t respected in academic circles but Harris actually got me interested in philosophy of mind when I came across one of his talks on free will.
Why isn't he respected?
That's fine. David Ick got me interested in 'One World Order' and 'hidden elite control of society' issues (Ick's still a complete psychotic idiot.)
@@terrorismisokaysometimes because he makes basic mistakes, use arguments that have been "debunked" and ignores an entire field and use "because it must" as a pillar
ua-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/v-deo.html
@@RetiredInThailand ye, feel like a lot of people initially get interested in mainstream public speakers only to discover their guy have no idea what hes talking about, i think its a part of the journey
@@Yellow.1844 Oh wow here I find myself arguing in the comment section at 3 am. However, I really feel the need to stand by my man Harris. I actually read his stuff before looking into his reputation, and I find his clarity of thinking refreshing. I think people often judge him too early, tryna counterbalance that a bit.
Since Hitchens death I'd say Matt Dillahunty is the new member of the 4 horseman, metaphorically speaking.
I'm not a huge fan of him, his interactions on twitter have revealed his incredibly sensitivity to opposing ideas, he blocks anyone with the slightest of critiques, no matter how respectful the opposer is
He's basically the embodiment of neoliberalism
Which is funny because neoliberals fucking hate him lol
@@evnnns It still baffles me that people identify as neoliberal now.
Which is why 13:01 confused me a bit. Sure Harris believes in some progressive ideals but didn’t the guy nearly endorse Bloomberg in the election?
Thanks for the video! Since i'm early, just wanna tell you that I really appreciate ya channel. Keep it up!
*WEELY WEELY GOOD LOOKING* : A GUIDE TO BEN STILLER
These are so good, could you possibly do one on Peter Singer?
Does Sam Harris acknowledge that U.S imperialism had and has a big part in Islamic fundamentalism
America: *Fucks up Islamic countries*
America again: Why are they becoming more fundematalist?
The question Harris asks is "Are we good people? or evil. But every side in every conflict ever has believed themselves to be noble. At the end of the day his test is not objective but subjective.
The US isn’t the biggest cause of Islamic Fundamentalism.
@@josszarnick2393 yes
@@josszarnick2393 the US funded osama in the end of the Cold War to fight Russia and support the corrupted shah of Iran leading to the ‘79 revolution.
Yo you fixed the mic! Makes the vids so much more watchable lovin it my dude
'Sam not I am' made me giggle
I appreciate Harris' takes on science and morality, because it provides a unique outlook on philosophy that is needed to encourage discussion. However, I find Harris' takes on Islam to be deplorable.
Sam Harris argues towards the idea Muslim immigration should be repressed with bogus opinions like the fact that they're not willing to accept our cultural norms.
I would like the raise the point that they don't have to accept any cultural norms, they don't even need to speak our language. A good Muslim is one who stays Muslim, after all.
As a high schooler enrolled in JROTC, there are many Muslims in my class despite American aggression against Muslim nations. Our Cadet Battalion Commander is Muslim, and her brother who is also my friend is just like everybody else, except for his refusal to eat pork at a ball one time. This goes to prove that Muslims do integrate within Europe and America the same way white people do into darker countries, with dignity and grace but also with acceptance in hopes of having a better future in foreign lands.
Sam Harris' lies repeat old white man's burden talk but with a cynical twist; the argument used to justify colonialism in and around the 1800's. It was once thought that white people simply had to accept their racial and religious superiority and to try to rule other races for their own good, while Harris believes basically the same but thinks the best way to coexist with Muslims is to eradicate their presence in western society.
These arguments are genocidal and objectively wrong at worst, and repetitions of old white man's burden rhetoric at best.
do christopher hitchens next
Interesting way of making animations. Looks easy. And I can draw, kind of. You've inspired me buy a graphic tablet and start my own channel now. Different topics though.
I won't lie I'm not a fan of Sam Harris. I think he's an intelligent guy that's extremely rigid in his views, but mostly I just find him very disrespectful and condescending to others with differing opinions. Maybe I've not seen enough of his work, but have struggled to appreciate his views, even if I think he has some interesting points.
Nah, this is a bug/feature of his brand of atheism. I agree with the sentiment that ideas dont need to be respected. However there are ways to communicate that stuff without being a bad atheist stereotype.
All I can think is yay when I see your videos, watching all of your videos has inspired me to take classes on philosophy or psychology
You shouldn't have included the Ben Affleck interview in this video. He had nothing of value to say and completely embarrassed himself, the way you presented it wasn't fair, even if it was brief.
Great video! I've always had a like/hate relationship with him and this video reminded me of the whys.
I know it's a long shot but a Bookchin video would be amazing!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS.
I have to say that this video is a genuinely informational video that presented a balanced and intersectional look at Sam Harris. I thought that he was no more than a slightly more intellectual Jimmy Dore before watching, but I now believe that he is a nuanced thinker and not a grifter by any means. Great video!
Sam Harris may be a sloppy philosopher but he's at least using his persuasive skills to bring a more equal, secular, and scientific viewpoint into the mainstream.
I’d say that whilst his metaphysical claims and ethical claims may be a bit lacking, I think he really does well when it comes to self help and politics. He provides a very pragmatic way of self improvement based in science whilst also not shying away from helpful spirituality. When it comes to politics I also find him to be rather introspective. He avoids falling into the pitfalls of the left whilst also solidly arguing for liberalism (European meaning) and strong public services.
You just summed up all my unarticulated thoughts on Harris, thank you
I just like using his waking up app
Thank you for this. I've been an in and out fan of Sam. I keep hoping that Sam Harris would come out of his own conformation bias and see the struggle from the left's perspective a bit better. When I read the Moral Landscape I came away with a feeling of a book that was rushed and not thourouly thought out. He unwillingly (I guess) became beloved by conservative voices because of his writing and thinking. His denouncing of himself from the IDW will not win over a left that routinely clubbers him on Twitter. What Sam probably needs is another trip to Nepal to meditate. I root for him but his extreme hatred for the left is his moral failing which is a contradiction of himself.
The Ben Affleck-Sam Harris debate is the most hilarious thing I have ever seen. Afflict got lot of hate after that becausehe was not well read on something he was arguing about. It was sort of virtue signaling. But I laughed alot😂😂
Ben asslick lmao
What an amazing video. Love the narration, the writing, and also the background music which reminds me of Birdman.
"hey this sisy guy's super cool i wonder if he has a video on my fav- AAAAAAAAAND IT'S HERE"
thx fam
Great video! Your script is amazing, love how you end with a perfect conclusion for this video
Even a totally neutral video that covers Harris's work feels like a total takedown.
Na.
@@dewdop ya.
@@shyman3000 ok.
Harris also wrote a book along with Maajid Nawaz titled "Islam and The Future of Tolerance". Maajid Nawaz was, as he calls it, a radical Islamist (nonviolent) who was imprisoned in Egypt shortly after 9/11 for work with Hizb ut-Tahrir and has since cut these ties and tempered his extremist views now believing in and advocating for a secular view of Islam. The book is a conversation between the two about Islam's future in our modern world. I thought it was weird that this wasn't brought up in this video going over Sams career as this was an important showing of what Sam believes when it comes to Islam, its future, and the people who get caught up in the extreme views of religion. It shows Sams's willingness to work with and give a platform to reformed members of extremist ideology who want peaceful coexistence.
I think a lot of people tend to judge Sam based on other people's opinions about him and don't go and check out his work themselves. He's far more reasonable than some of his inflammatory quotes make him out to be. While this video was a decent overview there's quite a bit left out and not given its fair shake. The video's author also has his own biases baked into a few of the points in the video. All understandable as this is just a quick overview of a lot of dense topics and no one is fully objective when doing something like this.
Imagine taking an 11 year break...
I always thought that Sam Harris was a Scientist who spoke out against religion. This shows how effective his self branding and marketing is. In reality, he is a philosopher for the masses, who dabbled in psychedelics and Eastern thought before cashing in on being a celebrity Atheist. His brief foray in Neuroscience provided him with credentials as an authority. Hats off to the guy for the amount of work he put in to this, but we should always remember that he is an Atheist missionary first and a scientist second.
yeah, those damn atheist fairy tales about the exodus and the like!
He is intelligent in the sense that he knew how to capitalize on 9/11 without anyone even realizing what he was doing.
Do a Muslim or Persian philosopher.
Yes! Khalil Gibran
Great Video! I think his plattforming of several thinkers warning against advanced AI is also important to mention about him. I second the suggestion, that you should do a piece on Noam Chomsky.
I want to like the guy, I get where he is coming from, but he just never put the work in to go from having some good points to having a good idea.
This. He has 90% of the cake, but he refuses to see the rest, if ya get me?
@@LibraryofGnosis Yeah, and even worse, in place of that other 10% of cakey goodness he poured himself a big glass of 'singling out a group of people to blame'...
@@reidwallace4258 who does he blame?
@@vitstwo7623 Islam, if he can stretch logic to manage it in any way, he has. I'm not gonna go so far as to call the man a bigot or anything, it never seems /hateful/ to me, just like a solution he trys to fit into problems.
@@reidwallace4258 I don’t know if I’m looking into it too much, but you and the comments hating on Harris for what he said about Islam seem very sheepish, like when someone mentions anything about Feminism and it’s suddenly sexist or something. Like people hear the words “Islam” and “bad” and suddenly Harris is a Trump rally Incel.
From this video alone, it seems like all Harris said was that the outdated cultural values of Islam (like how they treat women for instance) have no place in modern society.
I read one of Harris’ book, but otherwise I don’t know much about him so I’m not really a fanboy, but I feel like people are acting sheepish so I wanted to comment.
Great video, although I'm not sure if your last point on Sam's philosophy not answering what we should do in any unversal sense falling into the same problem as religion makes sense. His approach is not to be prescriptive about what we should do, but a guiding compass for at least what we shouldn't do. Agree that there's still a lot of white space between that and some of the more comforts of dogmatic religion, but it at least allows for flexibility and hopefully driving towards better local maxima on step at a time
Sam Harris is my favorite genre of dumb guy philosophy
You should do a video on GI Gurdjieff I find that not many people are aware of his ideas and when they are they're usually filtered through the prism of Ouspensky which while certainly related is more Ouspensky's philosophy than Gurdjieff's.
Sam Harris was really important to me when I was 18-19 and coming of age, then I grew up. The guy is on par with Dr Phil
Pretty much
Honestly this sort of series you have going on public intellectuals is awesome. Chomsky next?
I think he's a great example:
At how humans fail to master knowledge/skill in more than one area, ever.
So basically he is a utilitarian who thinks we can consistently and reliably define, measure, and recreate situations that maximize wellbeing. Despite that the same thing can be greatly pleasing to one person and torture to another.
Some people love the isolation of living out in the woods of Alaska. Some love the business of crowds in cities. Both of these people would hate to swap lives.
Thanks for including the critiques. All of them are correct. Sam is really your standard positivist with a twist of non-duality and non-self, meaning he has all the hallmarks of positivist errors while acting like a poor man's Derek Parfit (he only gets to this status owing to the probable wisdom brought by years in India and Nepal). There's a reason why positivism is a dead term, but he just revives it with all its flaws and its wounds, like a zombie. As Blackburn says, all he really does is bad philosophy, which by his account should include his 11 years of wasted time in India and Nepal, and this leads him easily to attribution error, which is a thing that religious people do when they get prejudiced to other sects, denominations, religions, or nonreligious person, which can otherwise be known as "turning the other cheek only for people you already favor." If anyone wants to listen to a philosopher-scientist who is not a bit of a joke (no matter how sincere Harris is in his secular humanism, this will remain true), Daniel Dennett is good, so is Tim Maudlin, Massimo Pigliucci, and a few others. His "word game" critique is an excuse to not do due diligence, like the kid who says the dog ate his homework. As for Islam, he's only correct, because he gives an ahistorical and incomplete picture, and the critique of him is also correct. He tends to dilute ethical issues into simplicity and he becomes as blind to his own dogmatism as the Islamists. Also, Ben Affleck is just a smudge liberal, who in that exchange with Harris, proved Harris correct in his blindspot even as he was pointing out obliquely Harris's dogmatism. Lastly, what is wrong with Harris is that he hasn't grappled with the Two Dogmas of Empiricism like Quine, to which Davidson added a Third Dogma, unlike Daniel Dennett who did the relevant intellectual hard work. Quine and Dennett are empiricists, and Davidson is a rationalist. At the very least, Dennett himself has learned thanks to recent good science, that cultural values are not universal, and thus one cannot be paternalistic to other cultures without risking being imperialistic, which is a fundamental flaw that many secular humanists, atheists, and wannabe naturalists still possess.
I think Sam is spot on with his responses to the mentioned intellectuals. They repeatedly fail to grasp Sam's point, despite his best efforts to explain, and he is usually a great communicator. I think the intellectuals critizising him are engaging in sophistication for it's own sake, and/or are blinded by their own theories, failing to see how they apply to the real world.
Let me try with an arrogant analogy, trying to succeed where Sam fails:
Sam and his friend Dennet want to cross a busy road, holding a sheet of glass between them.
They both see what they think is a good moment to cross, and start walking.
Upon reaching the middle of the road, Dennet stops.
"Why did you stop?" Sam asks.
"I'm unsure if we should continue" Dennet responds.
Taken aback and feeling increasingly unsafe by the second, Sam blurts out:
"It might be unsafe to continue, but it sure as **** is unsafe to stand here! Let's go!"
Dennet looks at Sam with clear annoyance.
"You don't know that with 100 percent confidence!" says Dennet.
"Besides, you are making an aweful lot of assumptions."
"What?!" says Sam, unable to belive what he is hearing.
Dennet rolls his eyes and explains:
"You arrogantly assume I want to live, and that I do not want to take risks in my life.
Do you know all the effects crossing the street will have on my life?
Nobody can know that. This isn't something science can determine."
Sam stands frozen in disbelief and horror, but Dennet keeps TALKING.
"Besides, can we really say that life is worth living? You cannot deduce what we SHOULD do,
from what IS! My preferences may not be your preferences, SAM. I think we shou.."
BAM! A speeding car hits them both and they die.
---
Notice how everything Dennet is saying is philosophically correct, but also how he still fails to grasp the obvious need to get OUT OF THE ****** STREET.
(Daniel Dennet seems like a really cozy, good guy in real life, but he does annoy me, so I don't feel super bad portraying him this unrealistically bad)
Put as best as I can:
If we are to have any meaningful political dialogue, we have to agree on our shared preferences. Locally, regionally, globally. Science and philosophy can help us find, clarify and articulate these, but will probably never directly prescribe them. Once these are in place however, the rest IS actual SCIENCE. AKA, the best tool we have to accomplish anything with defined goals. And while both the goals and the answers might never have the clarity of 1+1=2, and might be constantly changing, science is nevertheless the best tool we have to do it with.
And the absurd thing is, we ALREADY do this. Everywhere, all the time, to a greater and lesser extent. It just haven't been made explicit before.
Awareness, acceptance, and successful implementation of this fact is paramount to future human flurishing. That is, to fully understand everything about humans/life with all the neuances, wierd contradictions and quirks they have, work hard as heck, trying not to fool ourselves, using the best tools we have available, to create our own best reality.
That's my opinion, I think this is Sam's opinion, and I think this is the reason why he pushes it so passionately.
Ahhh everyone’s favorite new atheist horsemen
Nah, I'm an atheist and Sam's reaction to Islam is so unconstructive and he's been promoting right wing reactionary ideology.
Yeah I'm an atheist, Sam Harris is just objectively a stupid human
I think the actual wizard is the best one, plus the more cool and useful, then the trosko neocon he was really good debating, then Dawkins he was the meme inventor.
Nah I’m atheist but even I realize how idiotic his islam stance is
Superb article. Thank you for this
positive side - "gets to travel and do anything for free"
negative side - "cant progress academically"
tough life eh...
He didn't say it was
I said this some time ago and i will say it again: I am very grateful to be contemporan and live in an era era when i have access to such an incredible thinker as Sam Harris. He cleared my mind, my anxieties and expanded my horizons in a way that no other thinker did.
It's funny how so many 'public philosophers' don't actually have postgraduate degrees in philosophy, but other subjects like neuroscience or psychology.
Its almost as if they want to dominate the discussion on theory of mind or something...
Did ancient philosophers had Postgraduate degrees in philosophy?
@@priyanshusen2973 Subjects originally weren't separated as they are now, and fields like physics and biology came under the class of 'natural philosophy'.
However, nowadays, doing a phd in neuroscience does not mean that you will have studied any of the literature of ethics for example. If Harris only discussed the philosophy of mind, that could be justifiable, but venturing into moral philosophy when you don't have a background in it is questionable. Same goes for Jordan Peterson, his phd in psychology doesn't mean that he's an expert on Marxism/postmodernism and yet he seems to hold some strong opinions on it.
@@tdogg1515 yes Peterson does have his PhD in psychology however he was very focused on the psychology surrounding Marxism and how the psychology of the individual led to those ideologies and revolution. So I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have an expertise in that field.
I didnt know one was required.
I have a great deal of sympathy for sam harris, and I consider myself an atheist, but I'm interested in how someone would rationally explain this experience I recently had: I dreamed about a crow trying to break into my flat. Every time I opened the door it was frantically flying around and making strange noises. I said to my neighbour that it made dog noises. Well, more things happened, and I eventually woke up and texted my dream to a friend, as I usually do.
I stood up, ate breakfast and checked my phone again, and watched the videoclip my mum had shared from a local newspaper site with our family facebook chat. The video was of a crow barking like a dog. Totally random.
I've had experiences like this before. I've known very specific facts about real life before they happen. I once dreamed the specific age difference in years, months and days between me and my crush a year before I actually got to know her birthday and it occured to me that my dream about her and numbers that I dotted down a year before might actually fit with the age difference. It did, exactly.
My jaw dropped, and it contributed to me question everything I thought I understood about reality for a few years, until I retured to a scientific and evolutionary understanding of consciousness.
Now these experiences seem random, but trancend time. What is this phenomenah? It has really made me wonder, because I can't explain this with current science. It doesn't suggest diety to me, but it has made me wonder that matter and time might only be an illusion, or that consciousness is the real fabric of the world. A kind of information matrix. I can't make it fit with anything other than new age spirituality, but that again doesn't fit my worldview, either. Can anybody shed some light?
Yo when you gonna do a video about your philosophy -- and then a video about how you got there
This is a very nice series of videos.