What does Yea Forums think of pic?

He thinks you don't have free will if you won't touch a hot stove

Is Obama actually that cringe, or did his handlers tell him to do that?

is Sam actually a retard or what?

He's Jewish, so who knows

I think it was a holocaust reference

It isn't great and I'm a utilitarian

Kids, stick to Singer and Parfit.

He genuinely is. Most public intellectuals operate on weak and flimsy premises. But they usually are at least above average in intelligence. If I knew Sam in real life he’d be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever met. His mom was a rich tv producer so he got his foot in the door of the media sphere. We don’t know his name because he’s a philosopher or public commentator.

>If I knew Sam in real life he’d be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever met.
He’s a neuro-scientist. And you?

I’m a research mathematician. But that’s irrelevant. A rich kid paid for a meme degree and misused it at every turn. It’s no argument for his intelligence.

>is an expert on X
>therefore expert on Y
Checks out to me

nobody:

jews: LET ME TELL YOU THE MORAL LANDSCAPE

>I’m a research mathematician.
No you’re not. You’re a LARPer

>Goyim, the moral and virtuous thing to do is send 30 billion dollars of aid to Israel per year

This, fuck sam and fuck israel

>

Attached: 1522297715260.png (633x758, 133K)

>let me tell you how science can determine values
>bro what do you mean you are skeptical don’t you want to help people?

Attached: E3CE351D-2437-49AC-9BBB-722925EEAE43.png (1723x852, 1.02M)

Nope. Try again.

don't ask to play qualification wars and then back out. its cowardly

based as fuck

Not him but post proof or fuck off. You lose the qualification game unless you have evidence of your qualification.

>What does Yea Forums think of pic?
>333x499
>gematria intensifies

Trying or lack thereof is built into determinism. I don't get that how that disproves anything.

it isn't as if everything is chosen and is completely outside of our control. A big part of it is simply that when given a set of options under a given circumstance, we'd always choose the same one. Our choice isn't random.

>Sam Harris Noam Chomsky
Wow. I wonder how people still stick to Harris.

I'm not a huge Chomsky fan but Harris is a cuck for isreal.

Haven't read it. I only comment on books I've rwad.

not either of them but that's retarded. What is he meant to do take a picture of his degree on an anonymous imageboard just to be told 'lol nice photoshop ya neet larper'

>"Sam Harris Noam Chomsky"
He put it up himself. YIKES.

Kudos to Harris for publicising an exchange that makes it plain and clear that he is a clueless moron.

-Goes ahead and uncritically accepts is/ought, normative/descriptive distinction. Never considers that anything which exists is part of the 'is', which includes our mental phenomena and abstraction. The only logical conclusion is that oughts/normatives are an abstract subset of the 'is', and so do indeed derive from it (or alternatively that there is no 'ought' in a concrete sense, only the 'is').

-No one values logical consistency in itself, that's absurd. We value it (including the physicist) because of its predictive power. To value something, you have to -feel- some way about it... This precludes valuing anything simply 'in itself' -- it must have some use or effect upon your experience to be valued. This doesn't invalidate the idea of values deriving from facts, since even feelings/preferences are factual aspects of the brain (however inscrutable they may or may not be to our current level of technology). The bottom line is that at some level everything does reduce to facts, although Harris isn't very good at getting this point across.
-So-called 'normative' statements can be evaulated for truth, because there is always an intended outcome behind such statements. If we compare the outcome to the intent, we can ascertain the validity of prescription/proscription.
-We aren't capable of not acting in the interest of our well-being. Every intentional action of even the most screwed up person is going to be an attempt to improve their condition in some way, no matter how short-lived or ill-advised that well-being may be, or how gravely we miscalculate the consequences of our actions. Really think about this... The person who doesn't enter the happiness-machine does so because they have some notion that they're better off in the real world. Even someone killing themselves is seeking release from pain, or some fleeting psychological satisfaction, or sacrificing themselves for something they care about (which is another kind of psychological satisfaction when you really examine it).
-What Harris really fails to address is that our conditions of well-being aren't actually universal. While everything that happens in our brains are matters of fact, it is also a matter of fact that our brains are not the same. There individual and averaged differences which mean the best we can do is moral consensus... Truly secular morality must admit to technical non-universality. This doesn't mean that empiricism can't be a guide to morality, to the contrary -- empiricism tells us what realistic expectations we can have about the nature of morality.
-The criticisms of utilitarianism are extremely superficial. Obviously this guy has never seriously investigated rule or two-level utilitarianism.

A good criticism of Harris' shortcomings (which are numerous), but doesn't really dig into details of the philosophy. He's mostly just posing facile questions (without answering any) and regurgitating philosophical cliches like they're gospel.

>Goes ahead and uncritically accepts is/ought, normative/descriptive distinction. Never considers that anything which exists is part of the 'is', which includes our mental phenomena and abstraction. The only logical conclusion is that oughts/normatives are an abstract subset of the 'is', and so do indeed derive from it (or alternatively that there is no 'ought' in a concrete sense, only the 'is').
Whoo boy, that's a take

Attached: 1559773744732.jpg (898x1024, 130K)

you cant prove intent, brainlet

/thread

>It's a "rich well-connected atheist jew telling you what life is all about" episode

The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content. Personally, I can’t imagine doing it. However, if you want to do it, I won’t object.

Hehehe, wow, very goodu postu anoni-san, yess, very goodu postu...

Attached: smiling-asian-man-money-450w-278657846.jpg (450x320, 20K)

how do you feel about Stefan Molyneux?

Well, don't you know your intent? Surely you know what likely general outcome you have in mind when you follow a moral prescription/proscription? Also, it is likely we could prove intent with sufficiently advanced technology as it's just another aspect of physical brain state.

Y'know, zingers are funny and all, but isn't kind of pathetic for what is ostensibly a philosophy thread to be filled with nothing but?

youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI

...

which grove is this gideon trying to spoil?

>We aren't capable of not acting in the interest of our well-being
You seem to be arguing for psychological egoism, which is a very controversial position.
Anyway that's just a rationalization. Would you say that a bacteria swims one way or the other because it wants to maximize its own well-being? We do things because we are programmed to do them.

not his best video, he should stick to continental philosophy

Psychological egoism is retarded. I remember having that thought in high school and becoming profoundly depressed at it, only to look at how easy it is to refute.

Even ignoring all the work that has been done on altruism the very notion is a redundant truism. >Everything you do is selfish because you wouldn't do something unless it benefits you

Of course, and if you understand we are essentially 'programmed' then you understand that we can't help but behave in certain ways. 'Wants' themselves are just another level of programming. What seems apparent is that all programming on the 'want' level compels us to improve our condition in some way.

Is psychological egoism untrue if self-interest is a programmed imperative? Obviously a bacteria doesn't have programming at the sophistication of 'wants', so the analogy is false.

You're being disingenuous, presenting a circular statement as 'the notion' of psych egoism.

An actual argument for psych egoism would go:
Everything you do is selfish due to the workings of the biological phenomena which give rise to your behaviour.

If you're that easily depressed I'd just avoid philosophy though... Adopt some anodyne world view and focus your efforts elsewhere. There is no mercy in truth.

Does this guy think of himself as big brain philosopher? Why are all fedoras like that?

It's the aesthetic that attracts them to that walk of life in the first place.
>I'm different

Attached: 1555473089967.png (1024x927, 894K)

It's like they are trying to prove how every bad stereotype about them is true.

>The only logical conclusion is that oughts/normatives are an abstract subset of the 'is', and so do indeed derive from it (or alternatively that there is no 'ought' in a concrete sense, only the 'is').
What the...?
I'm just STEMfag who recently read Hume, but this sentence feels like total bullshit. It seems like yoh just bite a bullet. Can you elaborate more on why it is so I can fix to your idea?

A STEMfag who uses 'feels' as a standard... Interesting.

It's not complicated if you actually bother to think about it. Everything that exists are the 'is', which is to say that everything that exists are potential matters of fact (especially if you're a STEMfag). How can anything imagineable be categorized as truly discrete from that domain? Any category can only distance itself from fact (the concrete) via abstraction, but is still ultimately derived from fact. For instance, perfect geometrical objects only exist as abstractions (in the form of information) and do not exist concretely in nature. However, those abstractions are only possible because they are informed by the imperfect geometries which we do observe in the world.

>hey guys, morality is actually objective. You just have to apply this one axiom and forget it's an axiom

So it's a completely pointless line of reasoning. We haven't the faintest idea of what 'is'. Claiming, without demonstration, that oughts must necessarily be derived from is, doesn't actually help with anything.

I truly don't see the issue with it. His claim isn't that morality is objective, nor does he trespass the Humean principle. He rather claims that morality does not reside on the objective-subjective continuum and it is absurd to think of base moral values as having truth values attached to them. "Murder is wrong" for instance, makes no sense to him. "If your goal is the well-being of sentient creatures, murder is generally a bad idea" is what he claims belongs to the realm of objectivity.

The fact that the pursuit of well-being (understood as a continuum predicated on the absence of the worst possible suffering for all humans, whatever that suffering may be) isn't an objective value seems like an unreasonable objection, as we don't require the same epistemic rigour from something like the science of health. Or science in general. Or ontological certainty for that matter (e.g: we can't prove that the Universe isn't in fact 3 minutes old and projects the appearance of a past, but the evidence that stacks up in opposition to this hypothesis is enough for most of us not to embrace it).

The common denominator of our inter-subjective network is well-being (understood as the continuum predicated upon the absence of the worst possible suffering) , therefore it is reasonable to say that the worst possible suffering for all people, whatever that suffering may be for each of us individually, is a bad way of achieving well-being. That is not to say that it is objectively true that we shouldn't pursue this (ie: worst possible suffering). Just that within that "is" statement, there lies a science of avoiding it and that it would reveal multiple peaks of well-being as he calls it and multiple valleys of suffering. Hence "the moral landscape".

youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww
Have you seen this video before? Your opinion would be great for advocating, but he seems gone too far what you suggested.

No, I haven't seen that video, but my summary is what I gathered from his book. I'll watch it and I acknowledge that it can be the case that the video contradicts my understanding of the book, or that he wasn't careful enough with UNPACKING his moral philosophy in a 20 minute ted video. Or that he is in fact inconsistent. Or that I may have gotten the book wrong. Either way, if you agree with the contents of my summary, I'd recommend reviewing the original source (reading the book) and seeing whether my interpretation aligns with what is said there. I'll bookmark the video anyway.

Should the stove be on or off

is = to be = to exist

I'm not sure how you don't understand that. Whether or we have perfect knowledge about all of the workings of 'what is' is entirely besides the point. Is = the domain of existence. How can anything -- including our abstractions -- be said -to not- derive from that?

I did provide logical demonstration, but you're clearly too stupid to have noticed. You're way out of your depth here.

Anyone? Is my interpretation of the book flawed? Has anyone even read it, or are youtube soundbites all that everyone is ever operating with?

>I have free will because of quantum mechanics
this is a bad meme

I agree with your take user, although I think it would be less clunky to just frankly admit that morality can't be truly universal.

The issue isn't whether morality is objective (isn't all of reality objective?), it's whether it can be universal. It can't, because the objective differences between us which we call 'subjectivity' preclude that possibility. However, upon admitting that what we're pursuing is a moral 'overlap' (your inter-subjective network), his standard of well-being becomes eminently reasonable. The landscape becomes a plot of our overlap rather than a universal map.

>If you want to read something really cringe, google “Sam Harris Noam Chomsky” and read their email exchange where Sam whined to Noam trying to get him to debate and got btfo’d like the little reddit bitch he is.
can confirm worth reading, Sam is a brainlet if only for not realizing how bad he looked there

I disagree.

which part?

This guy reminds me of spy kids thumb thumbs and I really dislike him outright for that reason

It's not necessarily that the book or your interpretation of it is flawed, it's just an utterly facile argument. Bad things are bad. Great. Check out the big brains on Brad. What now?

Sure buddy, determining the nature of morality is a facile argument. What are you doing in a philosophy thread?

It would be a pretty big deal if people would admit that moral questions are matters of fact. We could start buildling a logical framework (however imperfect) from which to make authoritative moral judgements, instead of hand-wringing, spouting platitudes and relying on mere opinion. Moral high ground could be claimed empirically We could determine to what degree moral landscapes may be incompatible (say, between very genetically divergent populations). Would it make a difference? I don't know... Logic and facts tend to be soundly ignored in the arenas of politics and power, and people with attitudes like yours don't help. Still, it's better to have the potentially revolutionary idea established and promulgated than not, imo.

>determining the nature of morality
>I don't like the things I don't like
Try again. Start with the Greeks if you like

How about you start with fuck off, pseud.

>Ben Stiller is a retard
>His (((((((((((((objective))))))))))))))) ethics is laughable
>I am so much smarter
>If only I had a platform to flex my lekshoowelll muscles publicly and proove him rawng
>...
>Haha great defence of Harris buddy! "BAD THINGS ARE BAD"

Absolutely illiterate. 0 reading comprehension.

Go to bed Sam

But how can two people be one? Maybe you'll do better at ontology since your illiterate in moral philosophy.

And I'm literally illiterate. That or auto-correct. You're*

that is the worst shop

They've got the same name. Checkmate. There is no utility in assuming there isn't just one Harris fanboy who samefags his way through every thread

Don't know about the other thread, ut I'm the one with the summary here and so far nobody's been able to state a single thing that's wrong with it. Also, what's wrong with defending anyone's position? Don't know who the other person you quoted is, but regardless of whether he defends Harris' positions or not, the fact remains your post is daft.

Skip Harris. Read Mill. He's just a utilitarian who replaces "happiness" with "well being" to pretend he's made a distinction no one else has made in the history of philosophy.

>"well being"
I think his exact formulation is 'well being of conscious beings' or some other silliness. Which makes all the difference. Still has all Mill's old problems, which everyone is aware of after day one of learning to read

Donald Trump is the president of the united states. So was George Bush. Titles aren't shit.

>What we euphemistically describe as “collateral damage” in times of war is the direct result of limitations in the power and precision of our technology. To see that this is so, we need only imagine how any of our recent conflicts would have looked if we had possessed perfect weapons—weapons that allowed us either to temporarily impair or to kill a particular person, or group, at any distance, without harming others or their property. What would we do with such technology? Pacifists would refuse to use it, despite the variety of monsters currently loose in the world: the killers and torturers of children, the genocidal sadists, the men who, for want of the right genes, the right upbringing, or the right ideas, cannot possibly be expected to live peacefully with the rest of us. I will say a few things about pacifism in a later chapter—for it seems to me to be a deeply immoral position that comes to us swaddled in the dogma of highest moralism—but most of us are not pacifists. Most of us would elect to use weapons of this sort. A moment’s thought reveals that a person’s use of such a weapon would offer a perfect window onto the soul of his ethics.

Why is this allowed?

Attached: pg15__01.jpg (318x406, 46K)

solved morality

is that /ourguy/ Andy Race Warski?

Harris doesn't even have an objective principle underlying his moral schema. It's trash.

The conditions surrounding is PhD are questionable. He literally self funded and ran none of the experiments and 'analyzed data'. He doesn't actively publish.

> the genocidal sadists, the men who, for want of the right genes
Did he really not see the problem with phrasing it like that?

>The only logical conclusion is that oughts/normatives are an abstract subset of the 'is', and so do indeed derive from it (or alternatively that there is no 'ought' in a concrete sense, only the 'is').
You're being pedantic. However, the is-ought distinction relates to empiricism.

Then his book is trash and is just basic bitch pop utilitarianism.

Right, might want to read the book before commenting on it, or on a post summarising it and asking for any objections with regards to the summary as people seem to have taken other things out of it.

Is this Sam? He is such an autistic retard. Their whole conversation comes down to intentions versus outcomes with 'good intentions' not being worth much if the result and cost is deemed unacceptable, whatever that may be. Some actions are taken because of their necessity by an agent, a war out of self defensive that isn't even preemptive and is entirely unprovoked, where there are civilian causalities of your combatant who may be innocent pacifists that opposed the war.

The point is that there's no reason to value well-being. Any answer x to "why should you value well being" will be met with the question "why should you value x" and this will go on for eternity.
As for me, I only give a fuck about myself and my loved ones. If I could improve mine and their lives by a smidgen at the cost of causing immeasurable suffering for others I would do it.

If it is, and I suspect it is, he genuinely doesn't see a problem with it. His whole exchange with Chomsky demonstrates he doesn't think its possible for himself to be mistaken

I mean you could say the same for Chomsky.

Well yeah, but Chomsky doesn't advocate murdering everyone he considers incorrect, which kinda makes a difference

That wasn't my reading of it, but it's been a while. Will revisit it at some point.

>You cannot "get" an ought (i.e., justify one mutually incompatible "ought" [i.e., an alternate "Is", bought about in lieu of another by conscious choice]; I'm aware of the fact that oughts are themselves part of the totality of everything at any given moment and therefore do infact make up part of the "Is" and am simply utilizing semantics to make a broader point to everyone that isn't autistic) from an is

Ironic isn't it. Yet perhaps some genetic conflict can't be avoided.

It's not pedantic. Any prescription/proscription ('ought') has some real outcome in mind (is). Furthermore, it can't be possible for values to precede valuing agents, so values must stem from our natures (is). Therefore, we must concede that 'oughts' do not exist in a concrete sense, and in the abstract sense they are conceptual tools which are -directly shaped and informed- by our natures and circumstances (is). You can only get an ought from an is, and the distinction implies a false parallelism between the two categories (whereas it is obvious that all categories are abstractions within 'is').

If you think that's mere pedantism, and you're unwilling or incapable of detailing your objection, then perhaps philosophy isn't the past-time for you.

You don't need a reason, it's programmed. None of us can help but act towards some aspect of our well-being. What you're saying is you won't empathize with anyone outside of your immediate circle.... You can empathize (you'd improve the well-being of your loved ones, and you don't want them to suffer), but you'd still inflict 'immeasurable suffering' on those outside of the circle for negligible gains to those inside it. If you are to be taken seriously, that makes you a legit moral monster. I mean, there is such as thing as too much empathy (allowing foreigners to invade your nation), but your position is extreme and I doubt you're being earnest.

I have not claimed that morality can be truly universal (it can't be) nor that all 'oughts' can be compatible (they must simply be prioritized). You feign understanding, but it's clear that your perspective is still restricted by the lens of a false dichotomy.

If everything is determined, everything has always been determined, it doesn't change anything. You just go full circle and we're back where we started.

That is in fact Sam Harris quoting a passage from his own book in the email.

>but Chomsky doesn't advocate murdering everyone he considers incorrect
Yeah he only advocates killing cambodians

>restricted by the lens of a false dichotomy.
B... but is-ought gap is very truth...

This comment doesn't help to explain how ought is coming from is, this is just some knowledge of the existence. And this also doesn't help anything; it is description of abstraction in mind.

FIne, let's try this in reverse.

What is an 'ought', if it isn't a kind of 'is'?

If an 'ought' is a kind of 'is', what prevents its factual evaluation (aside from difficulty)?

How can an 'ought' be derived from anything but an 'is'? What other kind of knowledge (or other kind of anything) is possible?

Are 'oughts' not abstractions at most?

Do 'abstractions in the mind' not exist? If they do, what is their relation to the concrete world? Would they be possible without observing the concrete world?

Please educate me oh wise anons; I can surmise by your dismissive attitudes that you are all replete with keen insights.

>dude, what if ought statements, like, exist
>dude what if the good is like, the good
Galaxybrain right here.

I know you're trolling me here, but essentially I agree. The is-ought gap is such an obviously erroneous contrivance, I don't think it's any great feat to see through it. Yet philosophy seems to be haunted by many of these false dichotomies -- categories which forget they're abstractions -- which is odd for a supposedly logical discipline.

Anyhow... If this is likewise obvious to you, but you maintain that moral questions can not be matters of fact, why not take a stab at answering my second question? They weren't rhetorical questions, I'd genuinely like to see (intelligent) answers from those who dispute the possibility of empirical morality and/or maintain that Hume's guillotine exists.