by Grania
Sam Harris recently did his second podcast on The Tim Ferriss Experiment, it’s a very enjoyable listen for a Sunday morning.
From the show notes, these are the questions discussed.
- What are five books you think everyone should read? [6:53]
- In The End of Faith, you briefly discuss the challenging reality of having children. Why did you decide to have children? [18:58]
- Why have you stopped doing public debates? Who would you like to debate? [23:18]
- Could you talk about one of your differences with Christopher Hitchens on? Specifically, his pro-life stance. [29:03]
- What fact/event has made you change your mind recently? [32:53]
- What are Sam Harris’s morning rituals? I would especially like to know his meditation rituals. [36:03]
- If you had to recommend one thing for brain health outside meditation or exercise, what would that be? [46:18]
- Your first book, The End of Faith, featured a blistering attack on religious moderates. Now you strive to encourage religious moderation in the Islamic world. Have you changed your mind on religious moderation? [49:48]
- Would you push the fat man in the trolley scenario? Do you think a society could occupy a peak on the moral landscape if it’s inhabitants would all push the fat man? [55:28]
You can download or stream here.
If you want to listen to the first podcast Sam did with Tim, the link is on the same page, just a little further down.
I’m happy to hear Dr Sam plugging Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Due to Russell’s atheism the book is often routinely denigrated and described as “idiosyncratic”, while the more pious Antony Kenny’s much *goddier* History is preferred by nice people.
The chapters dealing with specific philosophers are interspersed with general chapters summing up the development of religious thought over the centuries, and these form a surprisingly comprehensive and (not so surprisingly) unflattering history of religion.
I highly recommend the audio book of it too. The reader has clearly taken the time to comprehend what he is reading and communicating the meaning. (I find that readers frequently make the mistake of monotonously emphasizing every single sentence, with no feel for what is a minor point, or an aside, etc.)
Thanks for that, I didn’t know there was an audiobook of the Russell: naturally I ordered it immediately 🙂
It’s via a reader on Youtube that I’m getting through much of it, listening to it on my iPod, allowing me to keep my mind occupied and thereby disposing me to cheerily enough submit to the “grunt” work which must necessarily get done in and around and about my domicile. (I’ve only had the bloody book since 1986.)
lol bought mine in 1974
I had a very atheist professor tell me that Russell’s History of Western Philosophy is not considered as very accurate. He recommended that I read Frederick Copleston’s History of Western Philosophy series. I read and enjoyed Russell’s book, but definitely want to check out Copleston’s as well.
IIRC, There is an interesting audio discussion/debate between Copleston and Russell on Youtube.
I feel like I should also mention that the professor that told me this was a philosophy professor, and an adviser for the school’s atheist/agnostic/freethinker’s club.
Russel’s history does for philosophy what the bible does for religion. It helps you realize that most of philosophy is just being ignorant of science and empiricism.
Richard Feynman:
Philosophy is as useful to physicists as ornithology is to birds.
What part of the great Feynman’s physics helped determine whether or not, and or where, to drop how many atomic bombs?
I don’t think he made that decision. I think it was largely made by Christian politicians and generals.
Noted philosophers, they.
Christian “I’m not a scientist” politicians. Re: Bobby Jindal.
Feynmans physics were still their physics.
I picked atomic bombs because Feynman was involved and the power of such things lead to questions outside physics. Ethical questions, questions that troubled a lot of the physicist involved.
Questions ‘physics’ can’t answer and that, perhaps some other field of thinking may help.
Thanks; looking forward to listening.
One has to wonder whether the complete absence of any questions addressing Harris’ bout of the century email exchange with Noam Chomsky comes as a result of Harris deliberately avoiding those question or that none of the almost 700 questions asked about it. The latter seems highly unlikely.
That episode -which revealed Harris’ complete tone deafness to Chomsky’s position – along with Harris’ apologia of Israel’s “Mowing The Lawn©” in Gaza and his position -indistinguishable from the NRA’s – on guns all but cratered Harris’ rep as the rationalist supremo.
He brings it up himself under the public debates question.
But not in response to a question about it. There were no questions about it. Very peculiar considering this was a watershed moment in Harris’self imagined immaculacy as standard bearer of all things rational. Which, was my point in the first place.
Your enmity is skewing your logic.
Making presumptive claims skirting ad hominem without any substantiation, ironically, is a strong indicator of both enmity and the absence of logic.
I can’t quite remember where, but he addressed a whole other article or podcast to that issue.
He may have felt it was put to bed.
Sam published the whole exchange on his website.
Yet another response not relevant to the point I made.
You think you made a point. I think you’re hung-up on one issue that not many others really cared about. “…bout of the century email exchange???” Sez who?
You clearly neither care nor appear to be much informed about it. Which is fine. Happens to me a lot too on many topics. Except that one then usually refrains from commenting on such topics.
He has addressed it on his website in text, and also in a podcast where he gives his impressions.
He went in to the exchange with Chomsky feeling that he had put it to bed BEFORE he went in.
Also, his position is distinguishable from the NRA on guns.
Reread his tour de force essay “The Riddle of the Gun”. He expresses “outrage over the political influence of the National Rifle Association.” And then launches into the circuitous logic usually associated with the religious and bankers. A variation on the “Too Big To Fail” argument.
In a nutshell: We just have too many guns to get rid of them.
Couldn’t disagree more. Harris has a lot of nuance in his positions, and I feel like a lot of people glaze over them. Harris wanted a cordial discussion with Chomsky, but from the very beginning Chomsky was unnecessarily confrontational and flippant. If he didn’t want to have a discussion with Harris, he should have just said that after Harris’ first email asking for a discourse.
Chomsky expressed his doubts as to the utility of the exchange at the very outset, which proved prescient. It was very useful, nonetheless, because it starkly illustrated how far out at sea Harris was AND APPARENTLY CONTINUES TO BE.
It’s one thing to disagree with Chomsky’s core thesis. It’s quite another to not understand it after he’s spent over a century arguing and documenting it in innumerable lectures, books, interviews and debates.
Harris, to paraphrase Pauli, is not even wrong on Chomsky.
“…after he’s spent over a century arguing and documenting it…”
No, no emotion in yourargument.
“…after he’s spent over a century arguing and documenting it…”
Is neither an argument nor emotional. It is a statement of fact. That you did not recognize it as such further instructs us on your familiarity with Chomsky’s work.
Well, I have to admit I didn’t know he was that old!
I meant to write “over half a century”. It is quite obvious that an average human being’s lifespan wouldn’t allow for them to be arguing a position for over a century.
Once again quite telling that this would become the focus of your response at the expense of any real engagement with the observation expounded in my initital post.