3 ms·

You'll get no argument from me about Jordan Peterson. However, I'm having trouble reconciling your apparent reverence for "the actual academic field," when Sam

You'll get no argument from me about Jordan Peterson. However, I'm having trouble reconciling your apparent reverence for "the actual academic field," when Sam Harris thinks and argues like so many of them, including the philosophers he has on his podcast. Blaming him for courting controversy is no different than blaming professional philosophers for avoiding it. Necessities of the trade. I don't think that objection sticks. If there are more substantive problems you have with Harris, then I would be surprised. And I would be surprised if the same problems weren't present among academic philosophers. But if you undermine the credibility of too many academic philosophers, then his lack of engagement can't be held against him.

keiferski 3y ago
Harris is not taken seriously as a philosopher by the academic philosophy community. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search/?q=Sam+Harris+&restrict_sr=on https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search/?q=Sam+Harris+...
- vehemenz 3y ago
  1. There are plenty of comments in those threads that support my position, as well as the standard gatekeeping positions. 2. This subreddit isn't as representative of professional philosophers as you think. Its demographic skews toward inexperienced grad students who (surprise) use Reddit. 3. I wrote this subreddit off 5 or 6 years ago because it was too concerned with the academic lifecycle and of existing literature of questionable quality. Appealing to authority only works if there is an authority present. 4. Again—you can't have it both ways. There are loads of philosophers who engage with the field who are deeply unserious for reasons more indictable than Harris. Edit: I should add that I don't think Harris is a particularly good philosopher, especially when it comes to his argument for moral realism. But if having bad arguments disqualifies one for being a philosopher, then we'd be committed to rejecting a huge number of contemporary academic philosophers, which doesn't strike me as your position.

keiferski 3y ago

Harris is not taken seriously as a philosopher by the academic philosophy community. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search/?q=Sam+Harris+&restrict_sr=on https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/search/?q=Sam+Harris+...

vehemenz 3y ago
1. There are plenty of comments in those threads that support my position, as well as the standard gatekeeping positions. 2. This subreddit isn't as representative of professional philosophers as you think. Its demographic skews toward inexperienced grad students who (surprise) use Reddit. 3. I wrote this subreddit off 5 or 6 years ago because it was too concerned with the academic lifecycle and of existing literature of questionable quality. Appealing to authority only works if there is an authority present. 4. Again—you can't have it both ways. There are loads of philosophers who engage with the field who are deeply unserious for reasons more indictable than Harris. Edit: I should add that I don't think Harris is a particularly good philosopher, especially when it comes to his argument for moral realism. But if having bad arguments disqualifies one for being a philosopher, then we'd be committed to rejecting a huge number of contemporary academic philosophers, which doesn't strike me as your position.