Nietzshe vs. Sam Harris

[Canpinter]

Sam Harris, is that one of the moons in orbit around planet Shitlord on Youtube?

*Googles him*

Oh yeah, that's the one.

what makes him a shitlord just so i know

[PC2]

But does not explain how it can be measured or how. Thus his philosophy is little more than "The way to be moral is to always be good!" which is ultimately nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan.

The argument otherwise is that Sam Harris hasn't even proposed the argument I am supposed to be against. Its nothing but muddied Consequentialism, I guess people such as himself are the ones whose infinite wisdom is supposed to be the arbiters in this framework. It is impossible not to be overcome with dread when reading lines like this: “The person who claims that he does not want to be better off,” Harris writes, “is either wrong about what he does, in fact, want (i.e, he doesn’t know what he’s missing), or he is lying, or he is not making sense.” His so-called philosophy is nothing more than a call for nanny statism and Scientisim.

Maybe he does have terrible politics, I haven't followed any of that, just the science conversations.

If anyone knew how to measure cognition that would be a huge breakthrough. You're straight up wanting answers to how complex systems work, but before that can happen the tools have to catch up to the subject. At the very lower limit the tools need the same amount of computation and data as the system you want to model.

[Theodarzna]

Maybe he does have terrible politics, I haven't followed any of that, just the science conversations.

If anyone knew how to measure cognition that would be a huge breakthrough. You're straight up wanting answers to how complex systems work, but before that can happen the tools have to catch up to the subject. At the very lower limit the tools need the same amount of computation and data as the system you want to model.

If my morality is supposed to be dictated by this, I actually want it to be a morality that makes any degree of sense.

Ultimately what I find chilling about Sam Harris' supposed morality is that other people will be left to dictate what is moral. Ultimately, and I know I get this shit allot for my opposition to it, Harris' The Moral Landscape ends with it just being an endorsement of Experts telling us what we aught to want, think and behave. Who decides what is better off? Who is making these decisions and how they are measured is completely IMHO impossible to claim in some empirical scientific way. His morality seems more to just be an endorsement of his politics, and a rationalization for it.

[Deleted]

Isn't Nietzsche a Nihilist instead of Atheist?

[Kontinuum]

Isn't Nietzsche a Nihilist instead of Atheist?

Not really.

[Forogil]

We need a perfect definition of Well-being in order to even know what to aim for. We also need to know how this factors intergenerationally, over time, what is the actual way to precisely measure Well-being? Who is measuring it? How are measuring it? ect

We don't need a perfect definition of Well-being for every decision.

Even an incomplete definition of Well-being would indicate that some alternatives are better and some are worse - even if we cannot compare all alternatives (in economic terms Pareto had one such idea a long time ago - but we can go further).

[Theodarzna]

We don't need a perfect definition of Well-being for every decision.

Even an incomplete definition of Well-being would indicate that some alternatives are better and some are worse - even if we cannot compare all alternatives (in economic terms Pareto had one such idea a long time ago - but we can go further).

Okay, we need A definition then, which Sam Harris never bothered to articulate beyond vague allusions to the low hanging fruit of generally obvious and very simple moral dilemma problems.

Its junk beyond the most simplistic of situations, and even the examples he gave are based on a lot of assumptions.

Ultimately what I'd ask is what does The Moral Landscape do with the Trolley Problem as one glaringly complex moral and ethical problem. Either Sam Harris isn't offering anything terribly original (I.E. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism) or he really bungled articulating it in the Moral Landscape.

[Garnier Fructis]

If my morality is supposed to be dictated by this, I actually want it to be a morality that makes any degree of sense.

Ultimately what I find chilling about Sam Harris' supposed morality is that other people will be left to dictate what is moral. Ultimately, and I know I get this shit allot for my opposition to it, Harris' The Moral Landscape ends with it just being an endorsement of Experts telling us what we aught to want, think and behave. Who decides what is better off? Who is making these decisions and how they are measured is completely IMHO impossible to claim in some empirical scientific way. His morality seems more to just be an endorsement of his politics, and a rationalization for it.

Uncharacteristically, I agree with you.

[Mormolyce]

what makes him a shitlord just so i know

No he's just in orbit around the shitlord planet.

It goes like this:

Nazis -> White Nationalists -> Alt-right -> Shitlord -> people like Sam Harris.

[Revi]

Wait, is Sam Harris taught as a philosopher in school now? :s

[Looq]

To me Sam Harris is logical, rational and practical to a degree that most people are not. Everyone who thinks he is racist, bigoted etc I find to be intellectually lazy or incapable/unwilling to understand him.

[ro9ue]

I like Sam Harris a lot, but the idea of moral absolutes is ridiculous. Morality is subjective and up the individual. We simply negotiate those positions with each other to exist with one another. Sam asserts there's an objective, factual morality we can arrive at that all humans would agree on.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't Nietzsche a Nihilist instead of Atheist?

Nihilist but it lead him to the concept of the overman/superman. Where each individual is responsible for their own meaning. (I personally find this more sophisticated than Sam Harris's objective morality.)

The person who I most agree with is Jordan Peterson. Morality is a vague ideal we all sort of agree on, but it is still up to the individual. He talks about ancient dominance hierarchies that have been around for hundreds of millions of years that have shaped our morality. But it's a process of Darwinism that lets different moralities win out over others perpetually.

It's why highly social animals have recognizable patterns of behavior that we often relate to our own morality (wolf packs, taking care of young, etc, protecting herd).

This leads me to believe morality will always be a squishy thing that has been around for so long we won't really be able to truly specify or wrap our heads around it. Whereas I think people like Sam think morality are only problems that only surface or are relevant to intelligent species (of our intelligence), but that's simply not true.

[smooshtheman]

So how much did you read? Just some conclusions on the internet? some real work of them?

enough to get the idea from both of them and side with one, i dont like sam harris much and i agree more with das ubermench

- - - Updated - - -

To me Sam Harris is logical, rational and practical to a degree that most people are not. Everyone who thinks he is racist, bigoted etc I find to be intellectually lazy or incapable/unwilling to understand him.

i wouldnt go anywhere close to calling him those things but i just dont like him tbh

[Deleted]

Personaly I better recognize in Nietzsche.