THE ZEN NEUROSCIENTIST: A GUIDE TO SAM HARRIS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- PATREON: [www.patreon.com/user?u=3261155](www.patreon.com/user?u=3261155)
MUSIC: [ / @izaakthomasmusic ]( / @izaakthomasmusic )
TWITTER: [ / 5isyphus55 ]( / 5isyphus55 )
Wired Article: [www.wired.com/story/sam-harri...](www.wired.com/story/sam-harri...)
Paper on "The Moral Landscape": [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...](www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...)
Chomsky vs Harris: [samharris.org/the-limits-of-d...](samharris.org/the-limits-of-d...)
Harris On Religion: [samharris.org/the-case-agains...](samharris.org/the-case-agains...)
Russell Blackford Critique: [www.abc.net.au/religion/the-v...](www.abc.net.au/religion/the-v...)
A Response to Critics 1: [www.huffpost.com/entry/a-resp...](www.huffpost.com/entry/a-resp...)
Sam Harris Response To Critics Regarding "The Moral Landscape: [samharris.org/clarifying-the-...](samharris.org/clarifying-the-...)
Guardian Interview with Harris: [www.theguardian.com/books/201...](www.theguardian.com/books/201...)
Harris Directly Responds To Is/Ought Issue: [ • Sam Harris at Oxford, ... ]( • Sam Harris at Oxford, ... )
Visual:
India Stock Footage: [ • Enchanting India Mumba... ]( • Enchanting India Mumba... )
Neurons: [ • Neurons & Synapses ]( • Neurons & Synapses ) - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
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
th-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/w-d-xo.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.
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?
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
He kinda looks like Ben Stiller a bit
When I was young I thought the two were the same people
@@johannesvonmalos7505 same
You should hear sams ben stiller story
Well they're from the same tribe
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
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
Love the perma-smirk you included with his doodle.
Your essays on modern thinkers are nuanced and well informed. Great job!
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
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.
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 :)
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.
th-cam.com/video/lmcdu6B_YUU/w-d-xo.html
The great quickening preceding the singularity.
@@jordant.teeterson3100 is this a terrence mckenna reference?
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.
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!'
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.
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!!
You do a really great job of covering figures who have been villainized or lionized in an accurate and even-handed way.
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
That thumbnail is inaccurate; everyone knows Sam Harris would never smile.
BLUE STEEL
This was one of your most informative and comprehensive videos. Thank you Sisyphus. You‘ve given great insight!
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
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!
Noam said "get your weight up bro"
"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
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."
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... ;)
This is really well done. Balanced, thorough, and thoughtful. Thank you for creating this.
This was insanely well made, nice job.
"...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?
You're hitting every controversial figure recently lmao respect
@5:25 That stickfigure Peterson is absolutely brilliant! :)
Yeeessss
Elaborate!
You’re putting out amazing content !! You should maybe look into non-english characters too, Antonio Escohotado and his discussion of the relationship between the state and narcotic regulation and its impact on people
Thanks for the video! Since i'm early, just wanna tell you that I really appreciate ya channel. Keep it up!
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!
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
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.
Great video! Your script is amazing, love how you end with a perfect conclusion for this video
What an amazing video. Love the narration, the writing, and also the background music which reminds me of Birdman.
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.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS.
Yo you fixed the mic! Makes the vids so much more watchable lovin it my dude
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
Hm, at first I didn't understand but I liked these videos about contemporary controversial thinkers, thanks
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?
Love this. Well done 🙌
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.
*WEELY WEELY GOOD LOOKING* : A GUIDE TO BEN STILLER
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.
This is a very nice series of videos.
Brilliant critique as always Sisyphus
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"?
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 !
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!
These are so good, could you possibly do one on Peter Singer?
do christopher hitchens next
'Sam not I am' made me giggle
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.
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.
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.
I just like using his waking up app
Superb article. Thank you for this
Loved it and really appreciate you for doing it :)
Could you please do one featuring Noam Chomsky? Thank you in advance and keep up the great work.
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
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 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!
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
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
th-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/w-d-xo.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.
another banger, amazing video
great dude. love this channel
sisy didn't even entertain the bell curve for a moment
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?
I really appreciate your videos.
Comment to boost you in the algorithm. Thanks for these regular videos
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: th-cam.com/video/wxalrwPNkNI/w-d-xo.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.
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
Honestly this sort of series you have going on public intellectuals is awesome. Chomsky next?
I never expected , you would bring Sam Harris. Good video
Sam Harris is my favorite genre of dumb guy philosophy
Imagine taking an 11 year break...
Man you make damn good videos
Loving that you are bringing awareness to terrence mckenna
"hey this sisy guy's super cool i wonder if he has a video on my fav- AAAAAAAAAND IT'S HERE"
thx fam
Oh wow. That's a serious subscriber boost.bwhered they come from?
Lobster king is very popular
@@sanket9305 Pretty sure Jreg helped a bit, too
Here from the Stirner Video.
@@lucidnode how?
This was very good, thank you
Since Chomsky comes up often, do one on him plz plz! Love your podcast and videos
Even a totally neutral video that covers Harris's work feels like a total takedown.
Na.
@@dewdop ya.
@@shyman3000 ok.
Yo when you gonna do a video about your philosophy -- and then a video about how you got there
This is a great video!
Live the videos, is there one on Hitchens?
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.
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.
Yeah, I need to get back to meditating. It always was a nice thing.
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.
Do a Muslim or Persian philosopher.
Yes! Khalil Gibran
No waay! I was just thinkiñg that I want one of these on sam and here we are
Nice summary. I will now he is not strictly Zen but meditates from the Burmese and Tibetan strains of Buddhism rather than Zen. 🙂