Out Of all the new atheists, he probably annoys me the least. I appreciate that he practices meditation, that he doesnt seem to have much of an ego, and I respect that he's been cogently and politely critical of Islamism (I'm not sure all of his arguments hold), but other than that, it's just more flash in the pan religio-atheism, as far as I can tell. Of course, his ideas might take hold and continue to influence western thought, for as long as it's around.

I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Yes, many...

can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Ken Wilber.

Christopher Lasch.

an you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? — rickyk95

Danny Dunn and the Anti-Gravity Paint, by Jay Williams

I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. Although this is certainly not the case, he appears to be almost infallible. I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense! What other people like him could I follow? — rickyk95

Christopher Hitchens had a nearly-unmatched erudition, combined with an acerbic and pointed style of argumentation. I would recommend not only his writings, but the copious amount of videos of his debates, lectures, and interviews, available on YouTube. This is not to say that the man was perfect, either in his arguments or his interpersonal style, but his was a unique mind, greatly missed and not easily replicated. Alas, weathering The Age of Trump is just a bit tougher without his biting social commentary.

What other people like him could I follow? — rickyk95

Noam Chomsky -- superior in almost every way. A true intellectual. I love Sam, but he only approaches Chomsky's level.

Noam Chomsky -- superior in almost every way. — Xtrix

This is true.

I seriously applaud you! A true seeker after wisdom and knowledge! This is rare.

mrw

rickyk95
53
I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. Although this is certainly not the case, he appears to be almost infallible. I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense! What other people like him could I follow? — rickyk95

Sam Harris and all the other proselytizing atheists...are simply pitching a different compound of the snake oil theists sell.

Nothing wrong with doing so. I mean that sincerely.

And I suppose there is nothing wrong with folk like you thinking that some people are more adept at selling the oil than others.

But when you take off the packaging...all you have is snake oil.

You might also watch the Chomsky Foucault exchange on youtube. I am so damn impressed with Foucault's foresight in that exchange. He seemed to exactly target the problem of tyranny in modern society: the supremacy of institutions.

I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, — rickyk95

I didn't read the rest, but I have a definite opinion that I wanted to toss out. Of all the so-called "public intellectuals" out there, Sam Harris is in my opinion the absolute dumbest of the lot. He's just a stupid man that is (1) educated; and (a) articulate to the max. And he has such a calm, soothing delivery. His ideas are just dumb. But he's stylish, I enjoy watching him talk

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas?

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas? — DingoJones

Just an impression I have. Nothing in particular that I remember, although I usually find something when I watch one of his videos.

Whats an example of one of his dumb ideas? — DingoJones

In one of his works he argued in favor of torture and separately in favor of treating beliefs like actions. IOW if Muslims have certainly beliefs that might lead to violence or classify people a certain dangerous way, these should be treated (the thoughts) as actions. I have problems with both positions, and their combination is incredibly bad. He denied the implications of his positions in the book, without acknowledging that horrific positions could be deduced from his arguments. Pre-emptive torture based on beliefs can be deduced from his arguments. Again. He later, when this was all pointed out, said he was against such things. But he created the premises that lead to some really horrible conclusions. He says the conclusions are not his, but he never denied that his assertions and conclusions that are these premises are false.

In one of his works he argued in favor of torture and separately in favor of treating beliefs like actions. — Coben

What I have learned about Atheists and intellectuals in general is that they don't actually have an education until they understanding sociology and political theory, specifically the rich variety of humanist thought contained in the Liberal tradition. And this does not mean Libertarians or Ayn Rand. Many Atheists make the mistake of thinking that these are powerful liberal philosophies simply because they make so much reference to reason. This is how Atheists and so many others who are seeking to flee from superstition get sucked in. If an Atheist thinker really wants to begin in the direction of a good Liberal education he would do well to begin with something like Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man.

Which one of his works was that in?

What I have learned about Atheists and intellectuals in general is that they don't actually have an education until they understanding sociology and political theory, specifically the rich variety of humanist thought contained in the Liberal tradition. — JerseyFlight

If someone else wrote this sentence, do you think you might have some problems with it on first encountering it - and even more after sitting with it for a while?

I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. — rickyk95

I don't think Harris is really a genuine philosopher, but what this neuroscientist is, is one of the best intelligent academic commentators and interviewers who is thoughtful, respectful in an era where others hurl accusations and vitriol.

Of course that Harris belongs to what is loosely called "the intellectual dark web" may raise hostility in PF, as other member of the group are widely hated here... at least by some. Usually this is just a knee-jerk reaction.

What makes a philosopher “genuine”?

Before answering your question, I would remind that not to be a "genuine philosopher" isn't negative or condescending (perhaps in our times it would be the opposite). Being a "philosopher" is as loose or even looser than being a historian.


a) that the person says/admits/confesses that he or she is a philosopher / puts it as the first thing in his or her CV
b) That enough of those in academic philosophy departments regard the person as a philosopher, a peer
c) that he has published well received literature in philosophy
d) and that people generally describe the person as a philosopher.

Before answering your question, I would remind that not to be a "genuine philosopher" isn't negative or condescending (perhaps in our times it would be the opposite). Being a "philosopher" is as loose or even looser than being a historian. — ssu

I understand, I was just curious what your criteria was.
From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher?

He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense — rickyk95

There are many consistent, logical tautologies that make sense but are not truth. Truth and nifty models of the world are not always the same thing. Personally I find his world view monstrous. He even tried to justify torture.

From what you posted, it seems like you just mean a professional or working philosopher? — DingoJones

Something like that, yes.

Harris talks to larger public and typically explains the more advanced terms etc. and tries to keep his talk as understandable as possible. A very good communicator in my view.

I agree with you, I think Harris is a very good communicator. Id say his job is a public intellectual, if that term means anything.
People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down.

People hate him though, so the clarity of his points gets lost in the emotional reactions he provokes in people. There are a few of these public figures that are like that, the mere mention of their names taps into a ready waiting mob that feel like they need to tear him down. — DingoJones

Well, any non-woke commentator will get at least irritation from the woke identity politics crowd from the left. I guess Sam Harris got his baptism of fire and the full wrath of that crowd after presenting his views on islam. And have to say, Harris does take it under his skin (which is understandable) and for example his conversation with mainstream journalist Ezra Klein some time ago was simply painful to listen, even if both tried to be cordial.

Thats true, there is always resistance from that crowd. I guess I more mean people who are against certain intellectuals who aren’t necessarily the fringe left. Harris is often attacked with strawmen, accusations of racism and bigotry with no basis, misrepresentations of his political views etc. People will straight up lie in attempts to smear him...they so despise him that they can justify dishonesty. I see it with others too, like if you disagree with the person you have to hate them and do whatever you can to discredit them regardless of its legitimacy. Ezra Klein is a good example of this with Harris, even though Harris let it get to him it was clear to me Ezra wasnt arguing In good faith and I know from other exchanges that Ezra knew he was misrepresenting Harris.

I would guess it was The End of Faith. That's my best guess. It's my guess because it was a while ago, so not one of his more recent and then when I googled around the issues I mentioned I found quotes that fit with the arguments I remembered being made. Perhaps they were made in other books as well and I am remembering one of those.

“Given the link between belief and action, it is clear that we can no more tolerate a diversity of religious beliefs than a diversity of beliefs about epidemiology and basic hygiene.”

― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say)

I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)

Do you think certain lines of research should be off-limits for the good of society? For example, there is already a ban in the U.S. on human cloning. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.

(and he extends this to the idea of treating beliefs AS actions. We can't tolerate certain beliefs and we must treat them as fait accompli actions. Interesting what happens if you apply this to his beliefs about torture,say) — Coben

Thats the first sentence of a paragraph, which explains what exactly he meant by that. Perhaps you disagree with it, but thats not the same as “dumb”.

I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)

Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)

What is it about that you think is dumb?

Do you think certain lines of research should be off-limits for the good of society? — RogueAI

I think there's a wide agreement in the scientific community that there indeed have to rules and limitations to research. Starting from the oath of Hippocrates, it is obvious that there is both a moral and a societal issue here. I do remember, just to give an example, the researchers that cloned Dolly the sheep were first asking for a serious public discussion and regulation on human cloning.