*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by demon_ix.

I like Harris--he is witty, brilliant, and quite thoughtful. But I also think that it is quite appropriate and telling that the man introduces him as an "iconoclast"--that is, in the good ol' (Biblical) tradition of the ban on images, Harris would seem to want a world where all religious images, institutions, ideologies, etc., would be prohibited from reaching the public.

In my view, one could deny science AS WELL AS religion their sovereign roles, and would not necessarily enter into moral relativism. There is NO discourse that can determine good and evil, because this binary (good/evil) is already a tension that is working at its most fundamental level in human language and experience: it is a tension that, while not representable by language or scientific discourse, is nevertheless common to everyone on an individual as well as shared level. But the problem is that no one field or way of thinking alone (and science is included here) can name this tension, as if to do away with the "problem" of disagreement and dissensus once and for all. Can't be done. Shouldn't be attempted. Why does he use these extreme examples of cultures who poke out children's eyes and shit? Well, he is talking about difference, here, isn't he? And whatever one might think about such ways of living, it is simply UNNATURAL to try and SYNTHESIZE and sublimate difference (on any level) within a single, unifying discourse. Ultimately, to attempt this would be both naive and would run counter to human experience and potential.

The FUNDAMENTAL problem I have with this kind of approach, is that it assumes we should, or even COULD, have a universal ethical system. And even beyond that, it ASSUMES that if such a system were ever to exist, it should (or could) be overseen and mediated by a single interpretive regime (science, religion, philosophy, etc). By INSISTING that we need to find a "system" somewhere, it seems that Harris is falling into the same trap that religious fundamentalists do. Its so reactionary: "Well, where are you going to find a moral SYSTEM then? To whom or what will you answer?" Sounds like the question my friggin bible study teacher used to ask. And in my opinion, Harris is already operating from that mindset.

The below quote from Sartre is inspiring to me. Although Sartre is kind of dated, I think he still proves useful as a reminder of what what is at stake in any discussion about "universal" systems. Sartre believes that the only "universal" and "transcendental" system we could ever have is our own need--which is never our own, but which is always both interior AND shared--to surpass our situation, which is not specific to a given approach or system, but which is a fundamental (in)capacity of man. This capacity, importantly, is also our incapacity. When things like science and religion get out of control (which they always have and will), who will be there to check them if not man, which is the only being who both strives beyond and knows his limits? (...) "Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) – it is this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human." -Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

@griefer_queafer : so, not interesting in joining the Borg, I-take-it? Well, 'resistance is futile', and-all-that-jazz.

http://videosift.com/video/Beyond-Belief-Candles-in-the-Dark-Sam-Harris-20-min

This is a great talk on the same topic.

Also, @griefer_queafer , there's an old, highly cynical saying: the masses are asses. When people like Harris yearn for a charter to outline ethics for mankind, I'm of the opinion that they are really looking for an easy look-up table or flowchart that will tell any human alive in 2011 whether an action is ethically wrong (to a p>0.05) or ethically neutral. You're completely correct in saying that constructing this flowchart would be subjectively based on some human devised system, and that this is trading one tradition for another. Harris' argument seems to simply be that one moral code is "better" (less subjective, or whatever he thinks) than the one the masses still embrace when we're talking about real people living real lives all around us now. This implies that if something "better" came along later, he'd jump on that. I think this is an important point, and starts us down a bumpy roads of how morality changes in societies and what are the values of tradition.

In other words, he doesn't talk about nothing, he just doesn't talk about what you wanted to talk about (and instead ridicules the very idea, with the whole 'eyeball removing culture' quip).

... a better subject of this talk (from my perspective) would be putting forward a Universal Outline of Human Misery... what is misery, what is avoidable misery, HOW do you value well-being, who gets to say what well-being is? He started jokingly describing this problem at 19min in, but then said, 'oh, this isn't a problem to science/medicine; constant-vomiting is bad, dying is bad, etc.'. Word? Seriously? What about, of, I don't know, abortion?

"We should avoid the 'worst possible misery for everyone' scenario" Well what the hell is misery? What are we even talking about?!

... at this point I should say that I didn't like this talk.

Did that old guy say Richard Dawson? Awesome. Survey says...

Hahahaha! Oh well - I gave 'er a whirl. In any case, I can't deny that it will be cool to live in a big sinister cube.

>> ^bamdrew:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://grieferqueafer.videosift.com" title="member since January 31st, 2009" class="profilelink"><strong style="color:#0d6e8c">griefer_queafer : so, not interesting in joining the Borg, I-take-it? Well, 'resistance is futile', and-all-that-jazz.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

Wow, Sam's really let himself go, eh?

"Every 3rd should walk in darkness."

Haha. Scripture in a nutshell. Idiocy in such poetic language.

*length=1:40:01

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:40:01 - length declared by xxovercastxx.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by xxovercastxx.

@gwiz665: You might want to swap ^that^ in for your Fora embed. Fora won't allow you to watch the full video via embed anymore. You've got to go to their site.

Replaced video embed code with backup #4103 (supplied by member xxovercastxx) - embed replaced by member gwiz665.