If humanity had more people like Sam, the world would be a much more pleasant place to live our lifes. As it is now, we rely too much on our flawed instincts to set policies. Populism and lethargy towards climate change are the result. I really hope we get the message of thinkers like Sam and become more rational on a global scale, working together.
If we had more people like Sam the US would be fighting a nuclear war with Iran and running a foreign policy crusade against unreason. The justice system would be abolished and police would simply be allowed to kill people based on their brain signals. Democracy and freedom of speech would be abolished because they proved to be obstacles to maximizing "Well-being".
Climate change? Really? There went your intellectual argument. I bet you can't explain and prove scientifically that man has anything to do with the change in climate. Further, it is arrogant to think that humanity can change the climate. This is political philosophy and not science. And all you can say is, "He's a climate denier."
Did you see Michael vs Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan? Michael intellectually humiliated himself. He is NOT a man of reason, nor open mindedness. Watch it. It's VERY revealing in a negative way. 100% lost respect for Michael after that debate.
Sam Harris presented a well-grounded argument about a science-based morality. He argued that morality is human and animal well-being. Harris also introduced the concept of "moral landscape," which consists of peaks and valleys that show the experiences of conscious creatures.
But whose definition of well-being is objective and should be strived for? Let's say Muslims would gain more and more power around the world and would become so strong that they would begin to force others into their religion or simply get rid of everybody who would not like it so that eventually, only those people who love Islam would be left in the world. Would that mean that Islam is the best way to go?
Science-based morality means that "people with physical or cognitive impairments should be euthanized because their lives suck" (as in the Nordic countries who have nearly eliminated Down Syndrome through abortion) But also "murdering people is wrong because murder is bad" (and the state murdering people is bad because they could be innocent). Therefore, if you're clinically murdered that is moral, but if you are murdered on the street that's bad (only for you because the murderer is not able to use free will)
@@asad9042 What is that? What is the scientific definition of well-being and whose well-being science is for? The last time I checked, science can tell precisely what would happen to your grandmother if you would add cyanide in her cup of tea but science is utterly incapable of telling is such act good or bad. Science is helpless in saying what moral values are good and what are bad. Therefore moral values are beyond science.
Shermer welcomes Sam Harris then. Now he says to Ayaan, "Are there good reasons to believe in God? I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments"
I am wondering that this lecture is from 2010, now after a month it will be 2025. Did Harris put any serious new (Thinking System) that can replace religion that is based on faith with a new System based on hard science and reasoning? Or is it the case that he have been just talking from 15 years till niw without any suggestion for a new define System that he suggest? I Suggest an open source System that people would contribute to it and goes there a reasoning and science filtration through a group of thinkers like Peterson, Dawkins, Harris and others with the same caliber.
Except maximizing well-being is itself an opaque idea in almost every case of contextual practice. And even if it was properly defined, I seriously doubt you can possibly maximize the well-being for all people at the same time, all of the time. In this sense, it's better to make the basis on Mr. Harris's clearly defined analogy of suffering. That's something that is much easier to understand and more easily avoided.
@@andybeans5790 It might be that what is good for the one is good for the whole, its hard to say honestly. It would be a whole new field of science that is for sure.
@@andybeans5790 I'm surprised you contend this because I heard no real definition of well-being from Harris at all apart from its opposition to suffering.
When he talks about scientific morality, just as excluded from history and other ways of describing truth and values, as all the different sciences almost always are. What I mean is that a person who studies psychiatry leaves out psychology, because psychiatry is a medical natural science, whereas psychology is related to philosophy and a humanistic science, as is also the case when it comes to history and theology, which are closely related. Then the "truths" are not even half truths. And when you pick out a hypothesis, about a certain subject, you study and write an essay, then you have to leave out a lot of theories, knowledge and subsubjects, which again reduces the discussion and the conclusion to an even less valid truth. Furthermore we have to ask ourselves what are the origins of science, where do the morality that sciences are based upon derive from. Religion? Or human collective experiences of being dependent on eachother for survival. And so on. If have watched 21:46 minutes, so I do not know whether or not he is going to touch upon those issues.
@@spridle OK. But I'm genuinely interested in what you think of the worldview. That's what I'm promoting (because I think it's important). Just like everyone here is promoting their own views.
Suffering of the body is not incompatible with happiness of the soul. It’s important to define exactly what type of suffering and happiness we are talking about
You suffer... "happily"? A bit confused. Must no longer be human. Brings the question to mind... If you already "ascended"... What are you still doing here? Just trying to save the rest of us poor fools from ourselves or something? Lol 😋😆
@@SkyeMpuremagic You could try Paul Bloom's book "the pleasures of suffering", or alternatively I'm sure there are talks of his about this on this very platform. The examples of suffering "happily" are innumerable, anything from physical exercise, eating spicy foods, to doing hard work with a larger sense of purpose, etc.
Sam is brilliant. If you have not already, listen to Sam and Jordan Peterson debate about this very topic. It’s every bit as entertaining as watching a football game or boxing match. They are both so well spoken and versed in their area of expertise, it is almost impossible for one another to gain an inch.
Peterson is not well spoken and his hyperbolic vomitous word salad is not "expertise" by any stretch. He has found a way to make an income just *blathering* like a Canadian Academic Guru version of Deepak Chopra.
Well I'm only 3 mins in and we're on the subject of tax so here's what's been on my mind quite a bit lately In the U.K. The tax threshold is currently £12,500. I strongly feel that the threshold figure should be an amount that you can actually live on (you pay your bills. You pay for your housing. You pay for your food and clothing) I guarantee that your bills and housing alone will swallow up that amount before you have bought any food or clothing! The government demand that, before you fund your own food and clothing that you fund other things like law enforcement, fire service, refuse service etc. Now these are all worth while services to have but please, as a single person (and there are plenty of us) can we please be allowed to feed and cloth ourselves first! I am diagnosed with autism, however it is virtually undetectable to the outside world, unlike my friend's son who is autistic and visibly so. I'm aware that some tax goes toward housing and care for people like my friends son. I learned from my friend recently that her son has money to spare. He doesn't need all that he gets and it sits in a bank account! I don't begrudge him this but I sure as hell wish that I could pay all of my essential living expenses first before being made to contribute to the up keep of others!
That’s just it. The idea of anything “universal” makes no sense. Each situation tends to be so vastly different in a hundred or more ways that I could list effect this. I don’t understand how so many things (not yours) and so many people’s thought processes and reasoning have become one variable situations. Nothing about the human experience (or most everything in the world) is one variable.
Amor Fati - Even with today's tech that is supposed to be so vast and great and they swear by it but they still don't means test, it's just one size fits all.
it can be a wonderful thing with a wonderful outcome to make people suffer. Psychopaths or narcissists, who don't understand other people's emotions, or don't feel empathy. Then put them through hell of some kind, not too long because that might make them bitter and non empathic, but feel the need for revenge, but long enough to make them understand the pain of others in similar situations, through understanding themselves through therapy. There is a lack of empathy, I am a woman who loves too much, there is a book about that, but the opposite is dangerous for society. I long for people to go through pain to become empathic.
Some of what he claims is baloney. Where did he get his data on the life expectancy of ancient Greeks? All I had to do was duckduckgo some information. "Contrary to the commonly held belief that in antiquity and as late as 1700 A.D. normal lifespan was about 35 years, there are indications that the ancient Greeks lived longer. In a study of all men of renown, living in the 5th and 4th century in Greece, we identified 83 whose date of birth and death have been recorded with certainty. Their mean +/- SD and median lengths of life were found to be 71.3+/-13.4 and 70 years, respectively. Although this cohort cannot be considered as representative of the general population, it is however indicative of a long length of life in classical Greece."
Re : final question...scientific appropriation of art ? Hmmm....makes me want to lick my pinky and stick it in a light socket ,despite the apparent moral premise that such an act could be scientifically defined as 1: causing suffering 2: therefore immoral. 3.pointless, as I have no hair ( smoke issuing from ears notwithstanding) 4: boring, to all but the more vicaruosly ; sadistically inclined among us. P.S. Sam is not in trouble.... That is MY job.(as artist).
I have a question that bothers me about religious why do we have to listen to the philosophy of religious and all the supporters that claim to be truth when there is no evidence to it and historically it's been proven that the non-existence of Jesus and yet people like Kent hovind and Jordan Peterson and others attempt to argue this position maybe defending their lucrative position but this is negative there is no reality to it we don't come from the invisible we don't believe on the Big brother watching us 24/7 and this is nonsense
The "Actuality premise", in Completeness, is pure relative motion and condensed connection statements, philosophically speaking, in which Science identifies precise, abstract, elemental constants or absolutes of relationships. If religious repetition of mnemonic rituals is basically a special circumstance of general Philosophical perceptions of Anthropic Intelligence applications, ie the politics of "good" in common, then how a society accurately fits general needs is refined and adjusted by the theoretical compositions become policy, of Scientific Analysis. "Absolutely" no conflict, unless testing by Devil's Advocacy. The "god of the gaps" observation is why "Scientists", by self declaration, who can only recite authority, are no different from Religionists espousing and reciting biblical authority don't confirm their veneer of mortality, in practice. Discussions don't harm science or religion, in Principle. Getting holistic advice from "voices" communicated in a Whirlwind Djin/genius environment is a pretty simple visualisation of abstract reasoning derived from perceptions of mind-body time-timing thought experiments. Not in contact with the re-presentation of (a pompous interpretation of) Reality is a good idea. All the rest is Commentary from everyone, and no one can know what they are talking about for more than an instant.
I know that a lot of people are sadists, and if it makes Adam so happy to see Eve be unhappy, to make her suffer, to hurt and molest her, and it makes her happy to caress him and for him to caress her, love in the normal, in my view sense, then it is not possible for them to be happy together, and she should run away from him and never look back, and he needs to find a likeminded person, or a person who likes to suffer. This is a big problem in today's society, also politically.
A decentralized system of testing hypotheses about how the physical universe functions, whose focus is on weeding out bad ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny. The exact system that has birthed the entirety of the modern era. Yes, what hubris. Do me a favor and put your device down and go bang rocks together, then you will be free of that hubris
@@774Rob It's a testament to how potent science is in furthering our understanding of the universe we inhabit. The entirety of the modern age is built on science and progress, so maybe science is an effective way of figuring out how things works. Surely this is something we can use to at least inform us of our moral landscape and what is best for ourselves
It's lamentable how far Sam has fallen since the death of the inimitable Hitch. Hitch warned against cult-like behaviour, & was vociferous in his condemnation of censorship - Sam forgot the lessons learned from Hitch.
This lecture is a prize example of why Sam Harris is intellectually a joke but a moral infant. His philosophical backing for the moral landscape is defeated within the first paragraph. We can imagine the worst possible suffering and admit it is bad and that anything else is better but we are talking about anything to do with morality. All he is saying is that suffering is bad and it's better not to suffer. But Julius Ceasars suffered less than most of his subjects did but he wasn't more moral. Every animal in the universe wants to escape suffering , but not everybody is moral about it.according to him it must be moral to move away from the worst suffering but we know this can't be true. His whole argument is nonsense
All you've done is completely missed the point of the speaker's example and created an over-simplified misunderstanding which allows you to build a Caesarian strawman. When you start your comment by calling your target an "intellectual joke," and then proceed to give what will be thought of as an embarrassingly fallacious argument to anyone who truly values intellectual integrity over "owning someone," then your motives become obvious to anyone who would take the time to read your comment with any degree of consideration. I'll leave you to deduce the ramifications of that fact, but I'm not confident that you'll arrive at an understanding that accurately reflects your dilemma. Good luck.
@@513morris At least I presented an argument for why I believe he is a joke. Please tell me one moral dilemna he has worked out using his moral landscape, his premise is that science can determine what we should value, but then later he says that the well being of conscious creatures is all we can value, but by his own premise that is something science didnt determine. so if the only thing we can value is not determined by science but is rather axiomatic how does science determine what we should value. The book is not even wrong. Its just silly.
@@jlrinc1420 - You've already revealed yourself as someone who doesn't want to understand the ideas being presented. I have no interest in wasting my time discussing these ideas with that sort of person, for the same reason I have no interest in discussing the shape of the earth with a smug flat earther. You actually bragged that you presented a fallacious argument that misrepresented the speaker's ideas. You aren't to be taken seriously. If you're incapable of comprehending the speaker's analogy between morality and health, then I guess you'll just have to continue to be clueless with respect to these ideas. Whether or not you choose to continue advertising that ignorance in the form of insolent comments is entirely up to you.
I think Sam has a very cursory understanding of how science works. Science operates very differently in the natural sciences than it does in the pure sciences. There’s little we know for certain when it comes to medicine. Studies revolve around increasing or decreasing the confidence we have in certain ideas, rather than proving or denying them altogether
The point remains however that there are right and wrong answers in medicine. We don’t know what they are given the complexity of the body and it’s reaction to chemical and other intervention, but no one thinks that in principle there is no truth to medicine. They do think that about answering questions of well-being, which is what Harris is criticizing.
@@motorhead48067 Medicine is one of the strongest proof of we were born and not manufactured by god. Maybe the reason behind that so much ppl thinks that vaccines are a force field which should work on everybody because religions poison everything.
Listening to this again, 10 years after the first time, I'm still baffled by the blatant anti-intellectualism and the fact that so many let him get away with it. He utterly fails to justify how an "ought" could be derived from an "is", and all he has to say about that root issue is that it is "unnecessary", or worse: "I don't know what you're talking about". It wouldn't particularly matter if this was just about the academic discussion. He wouldn't be the first to opine about moral philosophy despite having no idea what he's talking about. But it starts to become an annoyance when in other ventures he starts talking foreign policy or the like. As he completely ignores, for instance, works on costly signalling theory and its implications for human evolution, and more generally as he ignores any causal impact of material circumstances on value systems, he ends up getting the chain of causality ass-backwards. Which then leads him to years of banging his head against the wall, thinking that if only we could convince people to drop their shitty belief systems, the world would be a better place, without bothering at all about providing an alternative solution to the evolutionary purpose these beliefs are there to fill. Simply put, religious fundamentalism won't disappear as long as there are areas with high threat perception and low stability. Solve that, get jobs, social safety nets, reliable law enforcement systems flowing and your religion problem will be substantially reduced. From that perspective, it's no surprise at all that the US is the only Western democratic nation that still harbours such high levels of fundamentalism. And if the more pessimistic forecasts for the Western world materalise, you can fully expect that levels of fundamentalism will start to rise now in other Western nations as well. It makes his arguments just rather bizarre. Because in some sense, sure there are right and wrong answers, and sure we can set grand ideals to aim for, but it's entertaining ignorance to leave out all context, as if these ideals in a vat mattered at all to our everyday reality. The steps are simply: this is the context, what is the optimal solution to get the most well-being out of it? Can you tweak the context at all to allow for other solutions? That leads to a radically different approach to his. To take his example of a culture gouging out the eyes of certain kids, it would mean that if you want to address that, you'd be going beyond the obvious disgust we have for the practice, and examining what evolutionary purpose that practice serves, and what could be tweaked in that culture's context such that that evolutionary purpose was fulfilled by something else, something less harmful to those individuals.
This stuff was so cool to me until Jordan Peterson showed these guys to be not knockout titans but instead to master straw men builders filled with air for blowing their own spindles creations over
The Jordan Peterson Sam Harris debates are epic. Having Jordan Peterson during our lifetimes is a gift. He will be talked about for 100’s of years after we are all gone. He is literally a living legend and what he says to say is very very important. Unfortunately, most of the population knows more about lebron James than they do about Jordan Peterson.
my only disappointment with this is that sam does not know how to read the bible. I agree that many christians do not correctly read the bible as well, and they have done a LOT of damage, but it all comes from misunderstanding what the bible is. It isn't something you use to make moral arguments.
By what standard do you judge this? You will get 100 different answers if you ask 100 christians. It was Sam's point exactly that we cannot rely on Religion because it always comes down to individual opinion. I bet there are a lot of christians that would argue the Bible is the most moral and most important book of all.
@@davidfranzkoch9789 I'm not sure how science gets you the initial premise. How does science say "human flourishing is good" or how to define "well being". If I set my goal as this particular race is best and should thrive (rather than drawing the line at species), I can 'follow the science' to get me there. Most would agree though that this would be 'bad', though I'm not sure if/how you can scientifically define 'bad'.
Ah, yes. YOU have the correct understanding of the bible and how to read it. But 2 billion other christians do not. You have somehow stumbled upon the correct way, all these other people are wrong. You have uncovered the ancient wisdom of humanity, but not these other devoted christians.
@@milesmungo Well being is simply positive brain states, but more than that; the avoidance of negative brain states. And it's subjective. I might enjoy hot and spicy food, you might not. My well being increases when i eat spicy food, your do not. "Well being" is subjectively defined for each individual. Science can ultimately meassure this, enjoyable brain states are just a function of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and other chemicals in the brain. But more importantly well being is the avoidance of negative brain states. Such as pain, sadness, lonelyness, suffering, etc. These can also ultimatetly be measured, and these are also subjective. You might suffer from food that is to spicy, while i do not. As to, what is "good" and "bad", it kinda depends on how you use these terms. I kinda agree with Sam Harris point that if "the worst suffering for all conscious creatures" is not "bad", then "bad" is a meaningless term. If "bad" means anything, it surely applies to that situation. "Good" is simple things that move away from the worst suffering of all conscious creatures. And if you disagree with these statements, then you simply put no value to the terms "good" and "bad" and their meaning is completely empty.
It definitely isn't anything you can use to reliably find the truth about anything. I take the academic consensus as the most correct use for the bible, understanding the sociopolitical environment of bronze/iron age hebrew tribes.
@@DaFeanor20 oh God you used the word Gonk. lol.. Why I find amazing is you thought your opinion was so much more important than mine that it somehow counters it. Pat yourself on the back, you deserve a cookie.
@@meinking22 statements like "white identity politics is the worse identity politics". His constant virtue signaling. His comments about people in the IDW. He seems to be smitten by a purity struggle. I just can't stand someone who cow tows to the woke nonsense.
@@spridle a lot of people think that because Harris has been critical of Trump, he must suffer from "Trump Derangement Syndrome". None of these people have given an example of Harris' criticism being innacurate, mind.
I love that the people who throw around the phrase 'trump derangement syndrom' are always blind to the harm that trump did to this country and how much of a grifter he was. It smacks of such irony that I almost can't handle it. Hate the Dems all that you want, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Trump was a garbage president and is a garbage person who is also completely moronic. A self serving ego filled megalomaniac billionaire(allegedly) who somehow sold his schtick to the blue collar working crowd. Sad!
There is nothing as despicable as the query: what if females in the middle east embrace their culture, but they only do so out of an incapacity of thought and self awareness. This is like Katherine Mckenna's assault against models and sex workers in America who she claims, pornographically, are too stupid to understand they are being used. Who is the one reducing the other? The middle east where females assume a role antagonistic to US feminism, as a culture, or feminists from the US who claim they are looking out for women everywhere, which is a lie, and secondly, that middle eastern/arabic women who embrace their culture are too stupid to realize their culture is worthless, which it isn't?
Sam Harris, so calm, collected, and rationale. Someone like this should be president!!
Thank you!
mostly calm until he talks about Trump lol
And very funny too
If humanity had more people like Sam, the world would be a much more pleasant place to live our lifes. As it is now, we rely too much on our flawed instincts to set policies. Populism and lethargy towards climate change are the result. I really hope we get the message of thinkers like Sam and become more rational on a global scale, working together.
Well put.
If we had more people like Sam the US would be fighting a nuclear war with Iran and running a foreign policy crusade against unreason. The justice system would be abolished and police would simply be allowed to kill people based on their brain signals. Democracy and freedom of speech would be abolished because they proved to be obstacles to maximizing "Well-being".
@@luddicpath6756
Crusade against unreason you say? Maybe it should be a domestic one.
No shit
Climate change? Really? There went your intellectual argument. I bet you can't explain and prove scientifically that man has anything to do with the change in climate. Further, it is arrogant to think that humanity can change the climate. This is political philosophy and not science. And all you can say is, "He's a climate denier."
For shure its difficult to change these issues. Thank you for your work.
I Have just discovered the Briliance of Sam Harris
Michael Shermer when he had some hair!😂🙌👍
Love Sam Michael and old Hitchens
Did you see Michael vs Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan? Michael intellectually humiliated himself. He is NOT a man of reason, nor open mindedness. Watch it. It's VERY revealing in a negative way. 100% lost respect for Michael after that debate.
@@spridle If anything Sherm held back. Hancock's crypto-archeology deserves all the beatdown that can be meted out to it.
Finally a person with a humane morality. 🍓
"I only do what's best for all" is not morality
@@aishabintabubakr4944what is?
@@spectrepar2458that's utilitarianism
@@spectrepar2458why should "best for all" be the basis of a moral system. I don't give a crap about most people.
@@keithhunt5328 im trying to figure out what is
Sam Harris presented a well-grounded argument about a science-based morality. He argued that morality is human and animal well-being. Harris also introduced the concept of "moral landscape," which consists of peaks and valleys that show the experiences of conscious creatures.
But whose definition of well-being is objective and should be strived for?
Let's say Muslims would gain more and more power around the world and would become so strong that they would begin to force others into their religion or simply get rid of everybody who would not like it so that eventually, only those people who love Islam would be left in the world.
Would that mean that Islam is the best way to go?
@@nikokapanen82
Yes.
Science-based morality means that "people with physical or cognitive impairments should be euthanized because their lives suck" (as in the Nordic countries who have nearly eliminated Down Syndrome through abortion)
But also "murdering people is wrong because murder is bad" (and the state murdering people is bad because they could be innocent).
Therefore, if you're clinically murdered that is moral, but if you are murdered on the street that's bad (only for you because the murderer is not able to use free will)
@@nikokapanen82 the scientific definition. of what counts as well being.
@@asad9042
What is that? What is the scientific definition of well-being and whose well-being science is for?
The last time I checked, science can tell precisely what would happen to your grandmother if you would add cyanide in her cup of tea but science is utterly incapable of telling is such act good or bad.
Science is helpless in saying what moral values are good and what are bad. Therefore moral values are beyond science.
Shermer welcomes Sam Harris then.
Now he says to Ayaan,
"Are there good reasons to believe in God? I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments"
I am wondering that this lecture is from 2010, now after a month it will be 2025. Did Harris put any serious new (Thinking System) that can replace religion that is based on faith with a new System based on hard science and reasoning?
Or is it the case that he have been just talking from 15 years till niw without any suggestion for a new define System that he suggest?
I Suggest an open source System that people would contribute to it and goes there a reasoning and science filtration through a group of thinkers like Peterson, Dawkins, Harris and others with the same caliber.
Mike and Sam = 🧠👑's
Maybe I am dumb but I don’t see how the question in the title of the presentation has been answered?
Rationalism 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
"Science can't prove that the universe is worth understanding, but that doesn't make it unscientific." 👍
That intro was very 2000s
Subjectively set the goal being maximizing well being, then the morals becomes objective to that goal, and science can resolve that.
Except maximizing well-being is itself an opaque idea in almost every case of contextual practice. And even if it was properly defined, I seriously doubt you can possibly maximize the well-being for all people at the same time, all of the time.
In this sense, it's better to make the basis on Mr. Harris's clearly defined analogy of suffering. That's something that is much easier to understand and more easily avoided.
@@meinking22 except maximal wellbeing isn't everybody having individual maximal wellbeing, but wellbeing being maximised across a group.
@@meinking22 I agree that whatever we term it would have to be some long bleeping thing that explains what it is. :D
@@andybeans5790 It might be that what is good for the one is good for the whole, its hard to say honestly. It would be a whole new field of science that is for sure.
@@andybeans5790 I'm surprised you contend this because I heard no real definition of well-being from Harris at all apart from its opposition to suffering.
Start 3:40
Thank you sir
When he talks about scientific morality, just as excluded from history and other ways of describing truth and values, as all the different sciences almost always are. What I mean is that a person who studies psychiatry leaves out psychology, because psychiatry is a medical natural science, whereas psychology is related to philosophy and a humanistic science, as is also the case when it comes to history and theology, which are closely related. Then the "truths" are not even half truths. And when you pick out a hypothesis, about a certain subject, you study and write an essay, then you have to leave out a lot of theories, knowledge and subsubjects, which again reduces the discussion and the conclusion to an even less valid truth. Furthermore we have to ask ourselves what are the origins of science, where do the morality that sciences are based upon derive from. Religion? Or human collective experiences of being dependent on eachother for survival. And so on. If have watched 21:46 minutes, so I do not know whether or not he is going to touch upon those issues.
Does he talk about this matter without invoking religion. I just want his explanation on materialism.
2:03 Michael Shermer 👑👑✍️
If you found this approach interesting you might like the Sentientism worldview: "evidence, reason and compassion for all sentient beings".
No.
@@spridle Talk me through your thinking! Some food for thought if of interest th-cam.com/users/Sentientismvideos
@@Sentientism I'm against your self promotion, so you lost me there.
@@spridle OK. But I'm genuinely interested in what you think of the worldview. That's what I'm promoting (because I think it's important). Just like everyone here is promoting their own views.
@@Sentientism people promote their opinions in comments, not their world views.
Suffering of the body is not incompatible with happiness of the soul. It’s important to define exactly what type of suffering and happiness we are talking about
You suffer... "happily"? A bit confused. Must no longer be human. Brings the question to mind... If you already "ascended"... What are you still doing here? Just trying to save the rest of us poor fools from ourselves or something? Lol 😋😆
@@SkyeMpuremagic Exercise and other physical training can be hard on the body but great for the soul
There is no scientific evidence for a soul.
@@SkyeMpuremagic You could try Paul Bloom's book "the pleasures of suffering", or alternatively I'm sure there are talks of his about this on this very platform. The examples of suffering "happily" are innumerable, anything from physical exercise, eating spicy foods, to doing hard work with a larger sense of purpose, etc.
@@SkyeMpuremagic four letters: bdsm
Sam is brilliant. If you have not already, listen to Sam and Jordan Peterson debate about this very topic. It’s every bit as entertaining as watching a football game or boxing match.
They are both so well spoken and versed in their area of expertise, it is almost impossible for one another to gain an inch.
Peterson is not well spoken and his hyperbolic vomitous word salad is not "expertise" by any stretch. He has found a way to make an income just *blathering* like a Canadian Academic Guru version of Deepak Chopra.
Well I'm only 3 mins in and we're on the subject of tax so here's what's been on my mind quite a bit lately
In the U.K. The tax threshold is currently £12,500. I strongly feel that the threshold figure should be an amount that you can actually live on (you pay your bills. You pay for your housing. You pay for your food and clothing) I guarantee that your bills and housing alone will swallow up that amount before you have bought any food or clothing! The government demand that, before you fund your own food and clothing that you fund other things like law enforcement, fire service, refuse service etc. Now these are all worth while services to have but please, as a single person (and there are plenty of us) can we please be allowed to feed and cloth ourselves first!
I am diagnosed with autism, however it is virtually undetectable to the outside world, unlike my friend's son who is autistic and visibly so. I'm aware that some tax goes toward housing and care for people like my friends son. I learned from my friend recently that her son has money to spare. He doesn't need all that he gets and it sits in a bank account! I don't begrudge him this but I sure as hell wish that I could pay all of my essential living expenses first before being made to contribute to the up keep of others!
That’s just it. The idea of anything “universal” makes no sense. Each situation tends to be so vastly different in a hundred or more ways that I could list effect this.
I don’t understand how so many things (not yours) and so many people’s thought processes and reasoning have become one variable situations. Nothing about the human experience (or most everything in the world) is one variable.
Amor Fati - Even with today's tech that is supposed to be so vast and great and they swear by it but they still don't means test, it's just one size fits all.
I like the wii music intro
it can be a wonderful thing with a wonderful outcome to make people suffer. Psychopaths or narcissists, who don't understand other people's emotions, or don't feel empathy. Then put them through hell of some kind, not too long because that might make them bitter and non empathic, but feel the need for revenge, but long enough to make them understand the pain of others in similar situations, through understanding themselves through therapy. There is a lack of empathy, I am a woman who loves too much, there is a book about that, but the opposite is dangerous for society. I long for people to go through pain to become empathic.
Say the Rosary and go for Mass
Some of what he claims is baloney. Where did he get his data on the life expectancy of ancient Greeks?
All I had to do was duckduckgo some information. "Contrary to the commonly held belief that in antiquity and as late as 1700 A.D. normal lifespan was about 35 years, there are indications that the ancient Greeks lived longer. In a study of all men of renown, living in the 5th and 4th century in Greece, we identified 83 whose date of birth and death have been recorded with certainty. Their mean +/- SD and median lengths of life were found to be 71.3+/-13.4 and 70 years, respectively. Although this cohort cannot be considered as representative of the general population, it is however indicative of a long length of life in classical Greece."
Great comments thank you Sam
Re : final question...scientific appropriation of art ?
Hmmm....makes me want to lick my pinky and stick it in a light socket ,despite the apparent moral premise that such an act could be scientifically defined as
1: causing suffering
2: therefore immoral.
3.pointless, as I have no hair ( smoke issuing from ears notwithstanding)
4: boring, to all but the more vicaruosly ; sadistically inclined among us.
P.S. Sam is not in trouble....
That is MY job.(as artist).
1:06:02
I have a question that bothers me about religious why do we have to listen to the philosophy of religious and all the supporters that claim to be truth when there is no evidence to it and historically it's been proven that the non-existence of Jesus and yet people like Kent hovind and Jordan Peterson and others attempt to argue this position maybe defending their lucrative position but this is negative there is no reality to it we don't come from the invisible we don't believe on the Big brother watching us 24/7 and this is nonsense
Lol I have accidentally bought 2 copies
I havent listened yet. Will the presentation be something a 15 year old high school dropout will find convincing even if he never heard of Sam Harris.
Yes.
New information is always going to be to your advantage.
Hi , unfortunately, the time’s is not suitable, to focus on the topic which your argument at this moment , thanks
What are you talking about? Try saying that again.
The "Actuality premise", in Completeness, is pure relative motion and condensed connection statements, philosophically speaking, in which Science identifies precise, abstract, elemental constants or absolutes of relationships.
If religious repetition of mnemonic rituals is basically a special circumstance of general Philosophical perceptions of Anthropic Intelligence applications, ie the politics of "good" in common, then how a society accurately fits general needs is refined and adjusted by the theoretical compositions become policy, of Scientific Analysis. "Absolutely" no conflict, unless testing by Devil's Advocacy.
The "god of the gaps" observation is why "Scientists", by self declaration, who can only recite authority, are no different from Religionists espousing and reciting biblical authority don't confirm their veneer of mortality, in practice. Discussions don't harm science or religion, in Principle.
Getting holistic advice from "voices" communicated in a Whirlwind Djin/genius environment is a pretty simple visualisation of abstract reasoning derived from perceptions of mind-body time-timing thought experiments.
Not in contact with the re-presentation of (a pompous interpretation of) Reality is a good idea. All the rest is Commentary from everyone, and no one can know what they are talking about for more than an instant.
17:20
I know that a lot of people are sadists, and if it makes Adam so happy to see Eve be unhappy, to make her suffer, to hurt and molest her, and it makes her happy to caress him and for him to caress her, love in the normal, in my view sense, then it is not possible for them to be happy together, and she should run away from him and never look back, and he needs to find a likeminded person, or a person who likes to suffer. This is a big problem in today's society, also politically.
Don't you know, that all religions are the all time owners of morals or morality.
The hubris of scientism.
A decentralized system of testing hypotheses about how the physical universe functions, whose focus is on weeding out bad ideas that don't hold up to scrutiny. The exact system that has birthed the entirety of the modern era. Yes, what hubris. Do me a favor and put your device down and go bang rocks together, then you will be free of that hubris
@@Norundithus What has technology got to do with subjective human values?
@@774Rob It's a testament to how potent science is in furthering our understanding of the universe we inhabit. The entirety of the modern age is built on science and progress, so maybe science is an effective way of figuring out how things works. Surely this is something we can use to at least inform us of our moral landscape and what is best for ourselves
So what's the purpose of having any values at all if they don't relate at all to the concept of wellbeing? Why does morality matter?
What do you believe in?
It's lamentable how far Sam has fallen since the death of the inimitable Hitch.
Hitch warned against cult-like behaviour, & was vociferous in his condemnation of censorship - Sam forgot the lessons learned from Hitch.
You got the fact this talk was recorded in 2010?
Oh yes, that's my point. 🤘
Great! As if science isn’t being dragged for being like a religion enough already, Sam wants to kick it over the edge…
This lecture is a prize example of why Sam Harris is intellectually a joke but a moral infant. His philosophical backing for the moral landscape is defeated within the first paragraph. We can imagine the worst possible suffering and admit it is bad and that anything else is better but we are talking about anything to do with morality. All he is saying is that suffering is bad and it's better not to suffer. But Julius Ceasars suffered less than most of his subjects did but he wasn't more moral. Every animal in the universe wants to escape suffering , but not everybody is moral about it.according to him it must be moral to move away from the worst suffering but we know this can't be true. His whole argument is nonsense
All you've done is completely missed the point of the speaker's example and created an over-simplified misunderstanding which allows you to build a Caesarian strawman.
When you start your comment by calling your target an "intellectual joke," and then proceed to give what will be thought of as an embarrassingly fallacious argument to anyone who truly values intellectual integrity over "owning someone," then your motives become obvious to anyone who would take the time to read your comment with any degree of consideration. I'll leave you to deduce the ramifications of that fact, but I'm not confident that you'll arrive at an understanding that accurately reflects your dilemma. Good luck.
@@513morris At least I presented an argument for why I believe he is a joke. Please tell me one moral dilemna he has worked out using his moral landscape,
his premise is that science can determine what we should value, but then later he says that the well being of conscious creatures is all we can value, but by his own premise that is something science didnt determine. so if the only thing we can value is not determined by science but is rather axiomatic how does science determine what we should value. The book is not even wrong. Its just silly.
@@jlrinc1420 - You've already revealed yourself as someone who doesn't want to understand the ideas being presented. I have no interest in wasting my time discussing these ideas with that sort of person, for the same reason I have no interest in discussing the shape of the earth with a smug flat earther. You actually bragged that you presented a fallacious argument that misrepresented the speaker's ideas. You aren't to be taken seriously.
If you're incapable of comprehending the speaker's analogy between morality and health, then I guess you'll just have to continue to be clueless with respect to these ideas. Whether or not you choose to continue advertising that ignorance in the form of insolent comments is entirely up to you.
blah blah blah. Comeon dude support your assertions with an argument. just calling me names is a poor substitute
@@jlrinc1420 - That wasn't calling you names, that was calling you out.
I think Sam has a very cursory understanding of how science works. Science operates very differently in the natural sciences than it does in the pure sciences. There’s little we know for certain when it comes to medicine. Studies revolve around increasing or decreasing the confidence we have in certain ideas, rather than proving or denying them altogether
The point remains however that there are right and wrong answers in medicine. We don’t know what they are given the complexity of the body and it’s reaction to chemical and other intervention, but no one thinks that in principle there is no truth to medicine. They do think that about answering questions of well-being, which is what Harris is criticizing.
@@motorhead48067 Medicine is one of the strongest proof of we were born and not manufactured by god. Maybe the reason behind that so much ppl thinks that vaccines are a force field which should work on everybody because religions poison everything.
No.
Listening to this again, 10 years after the first time, I'm still baffled by the blatant anti-intellectualism and the fact that so many let him get away with it. He utterly fails to justify how an "ought" could be derived from an "is", and all he has to say about that root issue is that it is "unnecessary", or worse: "I don't know what you're talking about".
It wouldn't particularly matter if this was just about the academic discussion. He wouldn't be the first to opine about moral philosophy despite having no idea what he's talking about. But it starts to become an annoyance when in other ventures he starts talking foreign policy or the like. As he completely ignores, for instance, works on costly signalling theory and its implications for human evolution, and more generally as he ignores any causal impact of material circumstances on value systems, he ends up getting the chain of causality ass-backwards. Which then leads him to years of banging his head against the wall, thinking that if only we could convince people to drop their shitty belief systems, the world would be a better place, without bothering at all about providing an alternative solution to the evolutionary purpose these beliefs are there to fill.
Simply put, religious fundamentalism won't disappear as long as there are areas with high threat perception and low stability. Solve that, get jobs, social safety nets, reliable law enforcement systems flowing and your religion problem will be substantially reduced. From that perspective, it's no surprise at all that the US is the only Western democratic nation that still harbours such high levels of fundamentalism. And if the more pessimistic forecasts for the Western world materalise, you can fully expect that levels of fundamentalism will start to rise now in other Western nations as well.
It makes his arguments just rather bizarre. Because in some sense, sure there are right and wrong answers, and sure we can set grand ideals to aim for, but it's entertaining ignorance to leave out all context, as if these ideals in a vat mattered at all to our everyday reality. The steps are simply: this is the context, what is the optimal solution to get the most well-being out of it? Can you tweak the context at all to allow for other solutions? That leads to a radically different approach to his. To take his example of a culture gouging out the eyes of certain kids, it would mean that if you want to address that, you'd be going beyond the obvious disgust we have for the practice, and examining what evolutionary purpose that practice serves, and what could be tweaked in that culture's context such that that evolutionary purpose was fulfilled by something else, something less harmful to those individuals.
A well written critique that got me thinking.
Thank you.
This stuff was so cool to me until Jordan Peterson showed these guys to be not knockout titans but instead to master straw men builders filled with air for blowing their own spindles creations over
The Jordan Peterson Sam Harris debates are epic. Having Jordan Peterson during our lifetimes is a gift. He will be talked about for 100’s of years after we are all gone.
He is literally a living legend and what he says to say is very very important. Unfortunately, most of the population knows more about lebron James than they do about Jordan Peterson.
Jordan considers Sam to be his greatest rival.
Jesus is the "Sun King" and Islam is represented by a moon. Never shall they meet, unless.......unless we banish both?
again straw man. If you dont know anything about a topic, i think the better way is to shut up
It just gets worse, the more it goes on. This is light weight make it up stuff and just not good enough.
my only disappointment with this is that sam does not know how to read the bible. I agree that many christians do not correctly read the bible as well, and they have done a LOT of damage, but it all comes from misunderstanding what the bible is. It isn't something you use to make moral arguments.
By what standard do you judge this? You will get 100 different answers if you ask 100 christians. It was Sam's point exactly that we cannot rely on Religion because it always comes down to individual opinion. I bet there are a lot of christians that would argue the Bible is the most moral and most important book of all.
@@davidfranzkoch9789 I'm not sure how science gets you the initial premise. How does science say "human flourishing is good" or how to define "well being". If I set my goal as this particular race is best and should thrive (rather than drawing the line at species), I can 'follow the science' to get me there. Most would agree though that this would be 'bad', though I'm not sure if/how you can scientifically define 'bad'.
Ah, yes. YOU have the correct understanding of the bible and how to read it. But 2 billion other christians do not.
You have somehow stumbled upon the correct way, all these other people are wrong. You have uncovered the ancient wisdom of humanity, but not these other devoted christians.
@@milesmungo Well being is simply positive brain states, but more than that; the avoidance of negative brain states. And it's subjective. I might enjoy hot and spicy food, you might not. My well being increases when i eat spicy food, your do not. "Well being" is subjectively defined for each individual. Science can ultimately meassure this, enjoyable brain states are just a function of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and other chemicals in the brain. But more importantly well being is the avoidance of negative brain states. Such as pain, sadness, lonelyness, suffering, etc. These can also ultimatetly be measured, and these are also subjective. You might suffer from food that is to spicy, while i do not.
As to, what is "good" and "bad", it kinda depends on how you use these terms. I kinda agree with Sam Harris point that if "the worst suffering for all conscious creatures" is not "bad", then "bad" is a meaningless term. If "bad" means anything, it surely applies to that situation. "Good" is simple things that move away from the worst suffering of all conscious creatures. And if you disagree with these statements, then you simply put no value to the terms "good" and "bad" and their meaning is completely empty.
It definitely isn't anything you can use to reliably find the truth about anything. I take the academic consensus as the most correct use for the bible, understanding the sociopolitical environment of bronze/iron age hebrew tribes.
TDS extravaganza
Sam Harris lost all my respect.
He doesn’t have free will tho. Can’t blame him
Why?
@@DaFeanor20 oh God you used the word Gonk. lol.. Why I find amazing is you thought your opinion was so much more important than mine that it somehow counters it.
Pat yourself on the back, you deserve a cookie.
@@DaFeanor20 lay off of the cyberpunk boi.
@@meinking22 statements like "white identity politics is the worse identity politics". His constant virtue signaling. His comments about people in the IDW. He seems to be smitten by a purity struggle. I just can't stand someone who cow tows to the woke nonsense.
Before TDS took him over
tds?
@@spridle a lot of people think that because Harris has been critical of Trump, he must suffer from "Trump Derangement Syndrome". None of these people have given an example of Harris' criticism being innacurate, mind.
I love that the people who throw around the phrase 'trump derangement syndrom' are always blind to the harm that trump did to this country and how much of a grifter he was. It smacks of such irony that I almost can't handle it. Hate the Dems all that you want, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Trump was a garbage president and is a garbage person who is also completely moronic. A self serving ego filled megalomaniac billionaire(allegedly) who somehow sold his schtick to the blue collar working crowd. Sad!
There is nothing as despicable as the query: what if females in the middle east embrace their culture, but they only do so out of an incapacity of thought and self awareness. This is like Katherine Mckenna's assault against models and sex workers in America who she claims, pornographically, are too stupid to understand they are being used. Who is the one reducing the other? The middle east where females assume a role antagonistic to US feminism, as a culture, or feminists from the US who claim they are looking out for women everywhere, which is a lie, and secondly, that middle eastern/arabic women who embrace their culture are too stupid to realize their culture is worthless, which it isn't?