In terms of extemporaneous eloquence, I suppose Sam Harris is the closest living “Horseman” to Christopher Hitchens. (How many of you have wondered, over the last 13 years, “What would Hitch have written about this?”) But it’s a close race given that the other two living members of the quartet are Steve Pinker and Richard Dawkins, no wallflowers on the platform.
What strikes me is that Sam always speaks, as he does here, in perfectly constructed sentences and paragraphs, and has it all in his head the moment he starts speaking. He’s respond to questions with answers that began “Well, there are two separate points you bring up.” I couldn’t even come close: but the time I mentioned the first point, I would have forgotten the second.
This video of Piers Moragn interviewing sam is short (13 minutes) but covers a fair amount of ground. Here’s the YouTube summary.
Piers Morgan Uncensored is joined by philosopher, author and YouTuber Sam Harris for an open debate on the ideals and limitations of free speech, as well as the ongoing conflict in Gaza between Israel and Palestine as the IDF is slowly losing its country’s support in their conquest against Hamas due to their methods of attack.
Sam also discusses with Piers Morgan how religion and God have played a part in this conflict and could be partly to blame for the escalation.
The conversation begins with Sam explaining why social-media platforms do not and should not adhere to a First-Amendment construal of free speech. If sites like Twitter (X) weren’t cleaned up, they’d become toxic cesspools. Elon Musk, says Sam, isn’t really the “free-speech absolutist” he pretends to be. Sam and Piers go off on Alex Jones and his Sandy-Hook denialism—one example of how unregulated speech on social media can cause damage.
The discussion of the Hamas/Israel war begins about 3:33, with Sam emphasizing that the war is really based largely on Muslim religious beliefs (and to a much lesser extent on Jewish religious beliefs), and we can understand it much better when we realize that the jihadis really believe what they say they believe: their actions will land them in heaven. He also notes the special standards that Muslims claim for themselves, sometimes because of “the tendency of the Muslim community to erupt with psychopathic rage in response to what it perceives to be the desecration of religious symbols.”
A much longer discussion of the pernicious effects of religion on terrorism is found in Sam’s “bright line” monlogue linked below.
Finally, at 9:34 Morgan asks Sam his thoughts about whether the massive damage inflicted on Gaza by the IDF would actually increase the radicalization of Hamas. Sam then addresses the “disproportional” ratio of of Gazan civilian deaths to Israeli deaths as a purported reason to end the war. You can see his answers by listen to the video.
If this leaves you wanting more, do go hear Sam’s hourlong monologue, inspired by the war, called “The bright line between good and evil” from his Making Sense podcast. It’s absolutely brilliant, and much more an analysis of morality and religion than of the politics of the war.
Steve Pinker wasn’t one of the Four Horsemen. It was Daniel Dennett.
That’s correct. And while Pinker is an atheist, he’s Jewish and is involved in the Jewish community to varying degrees.
Yes, you’re right. I forgot!
He’s the Fifth Element.
Careful now, we must not invoke the soi-disant Fifth (internet) Horseman. His self-coronation was a bit of a damp squib.
I rather like him as the Fifth Element, above and beyond terrestrial allusions. And his hair makes for a wonderful natural crown.
I never really followed Harris, although I’ve seen him interviewed a few times in recent years. I find his opinions on censorship off-putting. I don’t think Hitchens would have agreed with him there.
I disagree with Sam about Twitter. I think Twitter should indeed be treated as a “public square” and should accept any legal speech (ditto other social media platforms with dominant market share).
(That does not mean that Twitter should promote the speech, or do anything except make it visible to anyone deliberately “following” that person. For example they need not add it to “for you” feeds.)
Would that mean there would be 4chan-style “cesspool” posters? Yes it would, but someone would not see them unless they deliberately asked to see them.
I’ve listened to 80% of the content Sam Harris has put out over the years on Making Sense and Waking Up. Sometimes I drift off to sleep with his melodic voice and rational words and then listen to the talks and interviews in the car, on walks, and at the gym. I agree with Jerry that his spontaneous verbal eloquence is unmatched — it’s stunning. He’s an outlier: I have never met another human being capable of talking so coherently and elegantly without a script. Bill Maher has also remarked about this of Harris, saying Harris always seems to come up with the perfect word.
Harris got put out a while back when Musk tweeted at Harris saying something like “Sometimes there is such a thing as too much meditation.” I do think that that insult has biased Harris some against Musk.
James Lindsay alluded to “the Malibu meditator” once.
Feel free to make of what one will.
Sam is indeed good at unscripted eloquence. Others similar are John McWhorter, Douglas Murray and perhaps Steve Pinker.
…and relative young-gun Alex O’Connor. By leagues the smartest and most eloquent person to have come out of ‘atheist youtube’. Or perhaps any other region of youtube.
+1
Roz, I too find Sam’s delivery soporific on his podcasts. Nonetheless, I regularly check in with him on his YouTube channel. I’ve always considered him a teammate in the pursuit of realizing human potentiality irreligously, if I might use that term.
I have subscribed to Sam Harris for a long time and I think the content is exceptional both for content and value for money. I look forward to each episode and sometime struggle to find the time to listen or watch. My favourite time is when ironing, ironing doesn’t take much concentration so it is ideal for listening or watching.
I think the fourth horseman is the philosopher Daniel Dennett, not Steve Pinker
1. Hasty thought (new to me) :
“… Sam explaining why social-media platforms do not and should not adhere to a First-Amendment construal of free speech. If sites like Twitter (X) weren’t cleaned up, they’d become toxic cesspools. ”
Where, then, would the cesspool go?
There’ll always be a cesspool – the existence of which government has one role in only : securing the inalienable right to individual expression – noxious or otherwise.
Which begs the question – where is that cesspool going to be?
I note that weird crap – maybe ads – pops up in X to which users can submit “not interested” feedback. Maybe it applies to other users. That’s something.
——
2. The title alludes to this quote :
“The line dividing good and evil cuts not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either— but right through the heart of every human being.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The Gulag Archipelago
1958-1968
I don’t put up every comment that I get, and if I did, believe me, this site would degenerate very quickly into that cesspool as people go for each other’s throats. Civil disagreement is tolerated, but not rudeness, nastiness, name-calling. or other stuff that would ruin the comments section. People should read “Da Roolz”!
Agree 100%, and I appreciate your efforts here – this … model … is well known to us regulars, and I understand it.
I would venture that PCC(E) releases enough example commentary to support the importance of this model.
It has challenged me to think through things better, and I appreciate the leniency when things don’t come out quite right (by Da Roolz) – for me or anyone else.
That’s one standard. No more … no … less….
Good for Sam. Damn near makes me wanna break out my old Sam Harris shark metaphor. 🙂
Thanks for the link. I couldn’t remember who had set forth that scintillating bit of prose.
I remember when watching the famous Four Horsemen discussion from 2007 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM) that there was a clear contrast between two pairs of speakers: Dennett and Dawkins spoke more in the way most of us speak — as a sort of first draft, which if they were writing (or starting the sentence again) would be more polished, whereas Hitchens and Harris seemingly came up with the polished version right off the bat. An awe-inspiring ability.
I have been told that Linus Pauling dictated his books to his assistant from memory with no further editing required.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with trolls being moderated. But how about someone with an opinion on climate change that goes against the scientific consensus?
This is indeed the problem with the Piers Morgan/Sam Harris stance. OK, so Alex Jones is thrown off Twitter for being both wrong and knowingly wrong. But who gets to judge these things? Tis better to allow ten Alex Joneses than to shut down one person who you think is knowingly wrong but is actually right.
But Linus Pauling was not a good lecturer, and nor were his fellow laureates, Bernard Katz and James Black. It seems you can be very smart in ways other than verbal facility (which fits in with the various scales in the WAIS.) The fourth Nobel winner I knew was a charming fellow, but you wouldn’t have guessed he’d won in physics, as he was a bit shy too. He came to see me in the office one day carrying a plastic carrier bag (remember them?) and in it was a large and heavy gold Nobel medal! I hope something rubbed off on me as I handled it; it felt rather special! He let me take his photo with his invention: https://flic.kr/p/aA3LKL
Perhaps X could have two platforms (or more) one, say, for the criminally daft and one for reasoned adults, that way all views are available but you don’t have to subject yourself to them. Once we know they are a whack job do you have to keeping sniffing the stench… well, maybe every now and then for a update.
I agree too with Sam Harris that the religious criminally daft are a huge problem.
Martyrdom is forever!
Endorsed, supported and funded by the United Nations and approved NGO’s, so don’t delay for a healthy return on your investment.
I highly recommend watching “The Bright Line Between Good and Evil” video at the hotlink provided above. A very clarifying hour in so many ways.
Friends, you may be aware of the recent contretemps on Substack surrounding the presence of Nazis on that platform. I have come down in favor of Substack hewing as closely as possible to the First Amendment and its attendant jurisprudence. I think where Twitter went off the rails was when it created the “like” button, as Lukianoff and Haidt have pointed out, as well as the hashtag.
I recommend this essay as a good conclusion to the Substack controversy:
https://open.substack.com/pub/castaliajournal/p/free-speech-is-actually-really-simple?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2xi1r
For those interested, here’s a new SEP entry on Freedom of Speech: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/