tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1990255867825581212..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Genuinely puzzled: what exactly is Blackford saying about Harris?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8345357464970968352011-03-11T08:17:43.490-05:002011-03-11T08:17:43.490-05:00Sandel's "Justice" - you were right....Sandel's "Justice" - you were right...........but now I've got more questions.........<br />:)Cavall de Querhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17687910584661433398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64834226651784436602011-02-28T20:00:43.882-05:002011-02-28T20:00:43.882-05:00Piero, well, I didn't see anything recently fr...Piero, well, I didn't see anything recently from you before this, so you may want to resubmit your comment.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48832587464010665512011-02-28T19:22:27.963-05:002011-02-28T19:22:27.963-05:00Sorry, just asking. Did my previous comment get lo...Sorry, just asking. Did my previous comment get lost in cyberlimbo?Pierohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17052662579477030895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33997755895572874872011-02-24T00:34:28.699-05:002011-02-24T00:34:28.699-05:00@BubbaRich,
You are of course entitled to your opi...@BubbaRich,<br />You are of course entitled to your opinions. Although I'm not sure why, if you've chosen not to read the book they're supposedly based on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41939423360454912192011-02-23T22:51:58.946-05:002011-02-23T22:51:58.946-05:00Jeremy: Harris DID write a book ABOUT philosophy, ...Jeremy: Harris DID write a book ABOUT philosophy, though he clearly (and willfully) didn''t write a book OF philosophy, especially not good philosophy.<br /><br />I have to admit I haven't read his book, not even the audio version I have, because I find Harris maddening. He says things that SEEM patently ridiculous, but upon closer reading end up being obvious or empty.BubbaRichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10334093723773620510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66285168889002870242011-02-22T17:47:28.784-05:002011-02-22T17:47:28.784-05:00I guess if you spin those mirrors enough I could b...I guess if you spin those mirrors enough I could be doubled up with James. And scope could be singled down to purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72891366753827136542011-02-22T16:59:38.415-05:002011-02-22T16:59:38.415-05:00James, at this point you are climbing on mirrors. ...James, at this point you are climbing on mirrors. I never restricted the scope of his book to a footnote, I published a detailed review of it. And it is simply intellectually dishonest of Harris to entirely ignore a huge field directly pertinent to the object of his book just because he doesn't feel like it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57160937022778973632011-02-22T16:49:31.990-05:002011-02-22T16:49:31.990-05:00Harris says in effect that he didn't write a b...Harris says in effect that he didn't write a book about philosophy because for one it's not his specialty, and thus he felt it more instructive to write a book about the application of the science that was his specialty to the understanding of our natures and inherent propensities for modes of societal behaviors; to thereby aid us in doing these things more successfully by an understanding on a more scientific basis of what most likely motivates us. <br /><br />But what he calls reasons you persist in calling excuses.<br />You've tried here to restrict his stated purposes to those only in that footnote and that's simply another spin on the whole of his intentions that's patently unfair. (According to some sets of principles of equality and justice, in any case.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17622648426427082852011-02-22T15:58:32.880-05:002011-02-22T15:58:32.880-05:00Jeremy, thanks for posting the whole thing. Now, h...Jeremy, thanks for posting the whole thing. Now, how does that change the discussion, or contradict what I wrote about him? Harris says that the ethical philosophy literature is boring and refuses to engage because some unnamed philosophers said it was okay for him to do so. Arguing that philosophy is inherently boring for the public flies against the facts. Many popular philosophy books sell very well, for instance Sandel's on Justice. And surely science can be boring as well, but that's no excuse for not writing about it. Indeed, that's whe we see if someone is a good writer or not: can you explain something difficult in terms understandable for the public? Clearly Harris didn't even try because he didn't care.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86208048967031531022011-02-22T15:42:11.770-05:002011-02-22T15:42:11.770-05:00@jeremybee
Massimo isn't the only one that is...@jeremybee<br /><br />Massimo isn't the only one that is saying this about Harris. I don't know how that line can be interpreted in any other way. Please enlighten us how is should be properly interpreted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89287938499597906152011-02-22T15:38:05.876-05:002011-02-22T15:38:05.876-05:00Massimo, Harris did that "construing" hi...Massimo, Harris did that "construing" himself in the part of his footnote that you've left out. Here's the entire passage:<br /><br />"Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy. There are two reasons why I haven't done this: First, while I have read a fair amount of this literature, I did not arrive at my position on the relationship between human values and the rest of human knowledge by reading the work of moral philosophers; I came to it by considering the logical implications of our making continued progress in the sciences of the mind. Second, I am convinced that every appearance of terms like "metaethics," "deontology," "noncognitivism," "antirealism," "emotivism," etc., directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe. <br />My goal . . . in writing this book is to start a conversation that a wider audience can engage with and find helpful. Few things would make this goal harder to achieve than for me to speak and write like an academic philosopher. Of course, some discussion of philosophy will be unavoidable, but my approach is to generally make an end run around many of the views and conceptual distinctions that make academic discussions of human values so inaccessible. While this is guaranteed to annoy a few people, the professional philosophers I've consulted seem to understand and support what I am doing."<br /><br />Now you can interpret that last section several ways, but to say that the public finds these matters of discussion inaccessible is not to say that if they could access and assess them, they'd necessarily be bored. The subject matter would be one thing, the discussions might be quite another.<br />What's boring, and it seems Harris has agreed, is the categorical delineation of the ideation that passes for an understanding of the subject matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27992828021171220282011-02-22T14:46:39.626-05:002011-02-22T14:46:39.626-05:00Jeremy, either you have the wrong book or you are ...Jeremy, either you have the wrong book or you are reading English differently from me. In the first footnote to chapter 1, Harris says: “Many of my critics fault me for not engaging more directly with the academic literature on moral philosophy … I am convinced that every appearance of terms like ‘metaethics,’ ‘deontology,’ … directly increases the amount of boredom in the universe.” I challenge you to construe this as anything other than saying that he can't be bothered engaging moral philosophy because he finds it boring.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29647938297979523892011-02-22T14:15:28.142-05:002011-02-22T14:15:28.142-05:00Yes, I have it right here on my Kindle and he didn...Yes, I have it right here on my Kindle and he didn't write that he finds moral philosophy boring.<br />That's your spin on what he actually wrote, which I invite you to quote here and compare that to your published version.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-86285550766848905372011-02-22T14:00:59.546-05:002011-02-22T14:00:59.546-05:00Jeremy, Harris says that in a note right at the be...Jeremy, Harris says that in a note right at the beginnig of the book. Have you actually read it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9934035764447428402011-02-22T13:53:59.920-05:002011-02-22T13:53:59.920-05:00@zemiron
Harris only said that in Massimo's im...@zemiron<br />Harris only said that in Massimo's imagination. I had a different dream as to what he coulda woulda said about the exuberance of Isms in the moral philosophy dominion. <br />Where all of the devoted subjects congregate at the critical thinking symposium and pull out their little book of ISMS to see what dogmatic category the idea or suggestion on the table might fit into, and if it's not in their particular dogmatic tract set, find ways to reject it out of hand. A "don't even think about it" moment will have been shared by all, before the mob disperses and goes about their business none the wiser.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72804448749272560192011-02-22T10:37:31.215-05:002011-02-22T10:37:31.215-05:00I find it disappointing that Harris dismisses mora...I find it disappointing that Harris dismisses moral philosophy because he finds it boring. That doesn't seem to me to be a rational or intellectual way of acting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11873198455646122182011-02-21T23:07:38.356-05:002011-02-21T23:07:38.356-05:00Jeremy, you are of course entitled to your opinion...Jeremy, you are of course entitled to your opinions. What you are describing is simply the tone of any negative review, ever read the New Yorker? What you call simplicity in my view is clarity, or at least an attempt at it. Let's not forget that we are talking about non technical writings. If you'd like to see me in a more complex mode just check one of my technical papers or books.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67231308132556088942011-02-21T23:00:59.234-05:002011-02-21T23:00:59.234-05:00Massimo, I've re-read some of your reviews and...Massimo, I've re-read some of your reviews and they have in common what seems to be a simplicity of tone, content and effort. If the book purports to take a new slant on some shared problem, you seem to almost take it personally that the writer didn't ask you first before he put it out there. Because then if he had you wouldn't have the duty now to correct his mistakes. Which would then appear to be the only things you look for. <br />But I've started reading Harris' book as well, and I'm astonished at the differences between what I've already found and what you say you haven't. <br />That you've taken the simple way out on more than one occasion was part of what I meant, and I don't think I'm the first to mean that. <br />Was that an accusation my part? Perhaps. There was also a reference there to the one book you've written differently several times.<br />Which on pain of censorship is all I care to say for publication.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4633874463170874512011-02-21T21:32:00.093-05:002011-02-21T21:32:00.093-05:00jeremybee, I only rejected one of your comments, b...jeremybee, I only rejected one of your comments, because it wasn't really making any point and it was insulting toward another commenter. If you care to rephrase your point I will gladly publish it.<br /><br />As for your accusation that my problem resides in my egalitarian management of simplicity, I haven't the foggiest about what you mean.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61389783729883346772011-02-21T19:22:14.425-05:002011-02-21T19:22:14.425-05:00A few of my thoughts from reading Sam Harris The M...A few of my thoughts from reading Sam Harris The Moral Landscape. At the outset he seems to make a simple category mistake. I always thought science was about explaining and predicting phenomena based upon theories and facts. If he is trying to redefine science, he should say so at the outset. Sure there are ethical ways to do science, good and bad science, and science itself has an implicit value at the very least of trying to obtain an objective picture of the world as possible, but science has not to my knowledge been about determining what is or is not ethical. As these reviews pointed out, apparently Harris has a basic contempt for philosophy in general, apparently thinking there are only two choices available – science and religion. He seems to be obsessed with all things related to Islamic extremism – but more generally radiates the sense that if we don’t come up with this scientific morality soon we won’t be able to effectively complain about burkas or female genital mutilation.<br /><br />But what I also found interesting was the rather typological or essentialist vision held by Sam Harris of what the good life is. It could be read as a bourgeois version of the ubermensch, a mini me version of Sam Harris himself, or vaguely like a less wealthy version of Bill Gates. Like medieval theologians he has a hard time coming up with what human flourishing might look like, but he can very clearly point out what hellish conditions and states of mind might consist of. <br /><br />Am I missing something, it seemed to me that not only did he not make his case of a science based morality, but he didn’t even try to make his case. We got vague hints about how fMRI brain scans might help us determine the relative well being of people based on their brain states. It seems to me that if Harris is going to come up with a new science of morality, he should at least try to provide a skeletal key to what this scientific scheme is supposed to look like. For example, when Stephen Wolfram developed “A New Kind of Science,” he at least gave us an approximately 1200 page tome with lots of equations and examples to look at to at least try to figure out what he was talking about. If he is going to solve a problem that has eluded scientists and philosophers for thousands of years, do we deserve any less.<br /><br />I don’t understand why this book hasn’t received more critical scrutiny, could there be friendship biases at work here?Mike Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18333950024832488420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30855026347149959502011-02-21T18:27:51.657-05:002011-02-21T18:27:51.657-05:00Since you've censored my last two comments, I ...Since you've censored my last two comments, I see no public harm in offering my opinion privately as to the remark that: <br /> >sometimes it really feels like I simply manage to displease everyone<<br />Perhaps it's your egalitarian management of simplicity that's the real culprit here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77232512521301836812011-02-21T15:00:53.635-05:002011-02-21T15:00:53.635-05:00jcm, trust me, the typical tenor of comments on th...jcm, trust me, the typical tenor of comments on this site is much better than in many other places. In fact, I'm thinking of writing a column about the venom I apparently elicited over at eSkeptic with the review of Harris' book...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29509918517083268592011-02-21T14:48:45.164-05:002011-02-21T14:48:45.164-05:00Massimo, I hope that my own (occasionally critical...Massimo, I hope that my own (occasionally critical) comments don't come across as signs of displeasure. Your blog is one of my favorites.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19501997056614353242011-02-21T13:39:27.907-05:002011-02-21T13:39:27.907-05:00jcm, that is correct, I meant the RS readership, n...jcm, that is correct, I meant the RS readership, not the world at large. The funny thing about my public writing is that I find myself defending science with the broader public, at the same time that I feel the need to restrain the scientistic attitudes of the skeptic community. With the result that sometimes it really feels like I simply manage to displease everyone. Oh well.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42203282020332314542011-02-21T11:58:17.322-05:002011-02-21T11:58:17.322-05:00...why so many people think that science and its m...<i>...why so many people think that science and its methods are the golden standard of all human activities</i><br /><br />Perhaps you meant something like "...why so many people <i>within the skeptical community that I frequent</i>..." <br /><br />In other words, I'm not so sure that your observation would obtain for the general population; i.e. even outside of creationist and politically conservative circles, where all kinds of woo are in wide circulation. But I would certainly agree that there is a lot more to critical thinking than a scientific education. <br /><br />In my own life, I feel that I owe at least as much credit to history, literary/textual criticism, and philosophy as I do to the natural sciences. Each of these disciplines served me with nails to hammer into the coffin of my religious dogmatism, which overtook me during my early adulthood. Art & music played likely roles, as well, but those were already big parts of my life before I became very religious, so they were clearly insufficient guards. (Indeed, I simply took up a greater interest in religious art & music during that latter period.)mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.com