BK calling out Sam Harris on his "sophomoric ignorance"

[Ben Iscatus]

I'd suggest that BK's issues with him go deeper than just philosophical differences.

Perhaps SH is BK's Shadow.

[bkastrup]

I am quite sure Harris will never debate me. Too much to lose and nearly nothing to gain. So there is no point trying to be falsely friendly towards him, in hopes that he might accept; he won't and I know it. My first challenge to him was in 2012, almost 10 years ago, as a reaction to a disgusting piece he wrote on Eben Alexander, dragging Eben's character and reputation through the mud, and even suggesting that Eben is a butcher instead of a surgeon ("Eben Alexander cuts brains, he doesn't study them"). More here: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/11 ... ed_13.html.
Influential people have already tried to organize this debate several years ago, and more than once. In the meantime, even his wife has debated me. So no, the chance he will debate me approaches zero very fast, and I know it. As such, I might as well just speak my mind, for I have nothing to lose either. I will make it at least uncomfortable and embarrassing for Harris NOT to debate me. And if he does, hey, I will be positively surprised and delighted to be in the ring with him; it would be cathartic.
I know a part of my readership is fond of Sam. Maybe you are. This is your right, as it is my right to dislike him (which I do). I hope you can keep these things in perspective and not get offended because I shot at a sacred cow. This is not a congeniality contest, but about content. I hope you like my content, not me, for idealism is whatever it is whether I am alive or dead, and so is the truth, which is what we are all interested in over here. I reject comparisons between me and Harris because I see myself as someone very different from Harris. As a matter of fact, although I won't blame anyone for making the comparison (I understand what might motivate it), to me, personally, the comparison is offensive. Arrogantly perhaps, I don't see myself as thin on substance, shallow in depth, provocative for effect, and more package than content, more image than substance, more delivery than argument.
More generally speaking, that I am almost violently critical of the output of some people is no news. If you expected me to be an enlightened being full of love and understanding, then you haven't been paying attention. I've been doing this kind of thing since the beginning and am well known for it. More than once I've elaborated on why I use this aggressive style (https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01 ... nsion.html). So if you're disappointed, too bad, but you haven't ever been misled by me; I've never pretended to be different or to act any differently. I am not your projections or hopes or expectations. I am just me. And you are not required to agree with or even like me.
Now, I have engaged in repeated public and private exchanges with some of my readers (probably members of this forum too). I used to to it more in the early days, because I am structurally incapable of regarding myself as anything other than a regular person, just like you, and because I know that academic degrees or the lack thereof often mean very little. However, there is one peculiar thing I've experienced now multiple times, the first time with the very first administrator of my original forum: people begin to mistake my accessibility for a kind of personal intimacy that gives them license to patronize me and 'put me in my place,' so to speak. I don't quite understand the psychology behind it, but it happens quite consistently, so it's not a peculiarity of any one single person. There seems to be a threshold in the number of personal exchanges I have with a particular person that, when crossed, leads to this phenomenon. This is part of the reason I interact less. But anyway, the point here is this: my criticism of Harris seems to have pushed a button in some people that promptly activated the phenomenon I am speaking of. So I'll just ask here: please don't make that mistake. I will treat trolling from anyone as just trolling.
If you are wondering what I really think of Harris, I will share it here: I really do not like his output and, frankly, as a normal person that sees others through subjective lenses, I don't like him either. I consider his work shallow, immature, thin on substance, full of fallacious generalizations that appeal to people's worst prejudices, often misleading and overall deleterious to the discourse. I abhor his broad generalizations of religious groups, his flirting with bullshit 'race science' (We don't even have a proper definition of intelligence, so it's just preposterous to even suggest that certain races are more intelligent. Hell, we don't even have a good scientific basis to talk of race in the first place!) and his unbelievable ignorance of basic philosophy, be it metaphysics, philosophy of mind or moral philosophy. Frankly, he may come across as smart and erudite to people who haven't studied these subjects in depth, but to me, in my personal opinion, he is a farce. With him it seems to be mostly about image, about form, and very little about substance and depth. You may not like it, but that's what I think. And I also despise what I perceive as the smug conceitedness with which he takes the moral or intellectual high ground and dishes out superficial nonsense from there.
There are many things that I disagree with and am very critical of in Harris's output, but for the vast majority of it I refrain from public criticism. Why? Because in my book one should open one's mouth only if one is versed enough on the subject matter to speak intelligently about it. I am not a moral philosopher. I am not a sociologist. I am not an anthropologist. I am not a political scientist. I am not a whole bunch of things that Harris writes prolifically about. And so I keep my mouth shut, even though I disdain it. But you can expect me to continue to be very publicly critical of him if he talks about philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and even AI, computer science, etc., if he ever decides to speak on these other fields as well. I consider Harris a negative force in the culture and my behavior shall remain consistent with this view.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana, how are things.

Hey Mark ... Ain't you heard, there are no things!

Do you know where the debate between Mrs. Harris and BK can be found?

I don't recall any actual one-on-one debate. They have been together in a panel discussion

As well, they've interacted in this IAI discussion ...

[Soul_of_Shu]

I am quite sure Harris will never debate me. Too much to lose and nearly nothing to gain. So there is no point trying to be falsely friendly towards him, in hopes that he might accept; he won't and I know it. My first challenge to him was in 2012, almost 10 years ago, as a reaction to a disgusting piece he wrote on Eben Alexander, dragging Eben's character and reputation through the mud, and even suggesting that Eben is a butcher instead of a surgeon ("Eben Alexander cuts brains, he doesn't study them"). More here: https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2012/11 ... ed_13.html.
Influential people have already tried to organize this debate several years ago, and more than once. In the meantime, even his wife has debated me. So no, the chance he will debate me approaches zero very fast, and I know it. As such, I might as well just speak my mind, for I have nothing to lose either. I will make it at least uncomfortable and embarrassing for Harris NOT to debate me. And if he does, hey, I will be positively surprised and delighted to be in the ring with him; it would be cathartic.
I know a part of my readership is fond of Sam. Maybe you are. This is your right, as it is my right to dislike him (which I do). I hope you can keep these things in perspective and not get offended because I shot at a sacred cow. This is not a congeniality contest, but about content. I hope you like my content, not me, for idealism is whatever it is whether I am alive or dead, and so is the truth, which is what we are all interested in over here. I reject comparisons between me and Harris because I see myself as someone very different from Harris. As a matter of fact, although I won't blame anyone for making the comparison (I understand what might motivate it), to me, personally, the comparison is offensive. Arrogantly perhaps, I don't see myself as thin on substance, shallow in depth, provocative for effect, and more package than content, more image than substance, more delivery than argument.
More generally speaking, that I am almost violently critical of the output of some people is no news. If you expected me to be an enlightened being full of love and understanding, then you haven't been paying attention. I've been doing this kind of thing since the beginning and am well known for it. More than once I've elaborated on why I use this aggressive style (https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2020/01 ... nsion.html). So if you're disappointed, too bad, but you haven't ever been misled by me; I've never pretended to be different or to act any differently. I am not your projections or hopes or expectations. I am just me. And you are not required to agree with or even like me.
Now, I have engaged in repeated public and private exchanges with some of my readers (probably members of this forum too). I used to to it more in the early days, because I am structurally incapable of regarding myself as anything other than a regular person, just like you, and because I know that academic degrees or the lack thereof often mean very little. However, there is one peculiar thing I've experienced now multiple times, the first time with the very first administrator of my original forum: people begin to mistake my accessibility for a kind of personal intimacy that gives them license to patronize me and 'put me in my place,' so to speak. I don't quite understand the psychology behind it, but it happens quite consistently, so it's not a peculiarity of any one single person. There seems to be a threshold in the number of personal exchanges I have with a particular person that, when crossed, leads to this phenomenon. This is part of the reason I interact less. But anyway, the point here is this: my criticism of Harris seems to have pushed a button in some people that promptly activated the phenomenon I am speaking of. So I'll just ask here: please don't make that mistake. I will treat trolling from anyone as just trolling.
If you are wondering what I really think of Harris, I will share it here: I really do not like his output and, frankly, as a normal person that sees others through subjective lenses, I don't like him either. I consider his work shallow, immature, thin on substance, full of fallacious generalizations that appeal to people's worst prejudices, often misleading and overall deleterious to the discourse. I abhor his broad generalizations of religious groups, his flirting with bullshit 'race science' (We don't even have a proper definition of intelligence, so it's just preposterous to even suggest that certain races are more intelligent. Hell, we don't even have a good scientific basis to talk of race at all!) and his unbelievable ignorance of basic philosophy, be it metaphysics, philosophy of mind or moral philosophy. Frankly, he may come across as smart and erudite to people who haven't studied these subjects in depth, but to me, in my personal opinion, he is a farce. With him it seems to be mostly about image, about form, and very little about substance and depth. You may not like it, but that's what I think. And I also despise what I perceive as the smug conceitedness with which he takes the moral or intellectual high ground and dishes out superficial nonsense from there.
There are many things that I disagree with and am very critical of in Harris's output, but for the vast majority of it I refrain from public criticism. Why? Because in my book one should open one's mouth only if one is versed enough on the subject matter to speak intelligently about it. I am not a moral philosopher. I am not a sociologist. I am not an anthropologist. I am not a political scientist. I am not a whole bunch of things that Harris writes prolifically about. And so I keep my mouth shut, even though I disdain it. But you can expect me to continue to be very publicly critical of him if he talks about philosophy of mind, metaphysics, and even AI, computer science, etc., if he ever decides to speak on these other fields as well. I consider Harris a negative force in the culture and my behavior shall remain consistent with this view.

Dare I say I'm reminded here of your own metaphor of us being like some boat-rowers out at sea in gale-force winds, and cresting 4 meter waves, and swirling undertows, thinking we're actually determining where all this to-ing and fro-ing is going , when actually it's the Daimons at work.

[SanteriSatama]

I can't say that I've ever really followed SH, but from second hand sources I've heard that he's bee improving (if ever so slightly and gradually) since his infamous violation of Hume's Guillotine as a very dogmatic physicalist. Which, back then, even his fellow militant atheists-materialists seemed to abhor.

What I heard of SH vs JP (didn't watch that either) was that 1st round was very frustrating, but on 2nd round there was some connection.

No real point in this comment, but I guess even a little improvement is better than none?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I can't say that I've ever really followed SH, but from second hand sources I've heard that he's bee improving (if ever so slightly and gradually) since his infamous violation of Hume's Guillotine as a very dogmatic physicalist. Which, back then, even his fellow militant atheists-materialists seemed to abhor.

What I heard of SH vs JP (didn't watch that either) was that 1st round was very frustrating, but on 2nd round there was some connection.

No real point in this comment, but I guess even a little improvement is better than none?

Surely if Annaka has any influence on SH at all, then he has some degree of openness towards alternatives to physicalism. In any case, one presumes she finds in him some significant depth beyond just his media persona.

[Ben Iscatus]

Very clear exposition from BK. Personally, I like his abrasive side. We are what we are and it's best to be true to ourselves.

[Soul_of_Shu]

We are what we are and it's best to be true to our selves.

Yup, just gotta inquire into what this 'self' is that one is being true to ... Some Daimon-driven boat-rower ?

[Ben Iscatus]

Wicked, Dana! Occasionally Captain Ahab must be allowed to pursue his Moby Dick.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Wicked, Dana! Occasionally Captain Ahab must be allowed to pursue his Moby Dick.

Sure, BK just has to let the locks and beard grow out quite a bit more ...