There's a lot of truth in this. Buddhism is a religion that doesn't require fidelity to any notions beyond the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path.
I have sort of the opposite problem. I sometimes **wish** I was capable of belief. It seems to offer a lot of people a lot of solace, at times. But even having been raised in a religious household, I just... don't.
Yeah, but it was a pretty rough realization at 15 or so that I just didn't experience this thing that so many other people (and all of my family) did.
I have since grown used to that experience, but it's just so central to so many people's lives. I dunno. Just another way I don't really feel like I fit in with my species, I guess.
> Buddhism is a religion that doesn't require fidelity to any notions beyond the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path.
Yes, and, but. The "but" part is that nearly every Buddhist in history, all the way from the Buddha down to my grandma believed in all kinds of stuff like magical powers, rebirth etc. We can interpret the texts in ways that square with Western rationalism, but it's a bit of a stretch
The "and" part though is that Buddhism requires even less than you say. It's a practice of *investigating* the claims of the Dhamma. You are allowed to be skeptical of them, as long as you investigate them dilligently according to the instructions.
But even this is an act of faith (saddhā) and Secularist Sam won't go there, he will investigate the Dhamma where where his reason tells him is reasonable to investigate and no more. He is being honest when he says he is no a Buddhist.
Your "but" here is true historically but becoming less so. I am part of a Buddhist community and believe in none of this; nor do any of my fellows, to the best of my knowledge. The more people find Buddhism through a route of there's-no-god-but-I-still-need-peace-of-mind-spirituality-and-discipline the less this will be true.
Also, while it matters to some extent what Buddhists believe, if Buddhism *itself* is going to get "charged" with that, then Christianity has to answer for just about all physical abuse of children in the United States, which isn't really fair.
> Your "but" here is true historically but becoming less so ... The more people find Buddhism through a route of there's-no-god-but-I-still-need-peace-of-mind-spirituality-and-discipline the less this will be true.
True enough. Western rationalist Buddhism is a real and vibrant thing, and no less orthodox than older traditions with distinguished pedigrees.
But I'm not really "charging" Buddhism with the sin of teaching magic & rebirth. After half a life of ding-donging I now call myself a Buddhist and I temper my skepticism about those things until I understand what they mean.
And I imagine most of your readers have encountered at least one person who would absolutely concur with Harris, here.
Probably a lot more than one. "Oh, those stupid hicks in flyover country" is a declaration that those people aren't really entitled to vote. That's a pretty horrifying attitude to have in a constitutional republic that uses the mechanisms of democracy to mediate disputes between factions. It places people in the position of not being able to trust the mechanisms of government to mediate those disputes. That the law will protect them as well, and that they are even still within the embrace of the concept of "law". That those mechanisms will be anything approaching "fair", and fairness is a fairly deep level thing that's wired even into our close cousins, the chimpanzees.
How do other factions who are outside the law settle their disputes? Well, in this country, it's often labeled "gang violence". And those are typically fairly small groups.
Y'know, I really can't say that I'm particularly enjoying our descent into the Endarkenment. (Hat tip to Billy Beck for coining that one.)
Yeah. And I don't think they have any idea how dangerous what they're doing is. Trying to gaslight half of an entire country is likely to produce some kickback, eventually.
Thanks for doing this. It is easy to be swayed by elaborate, well articulated, and well constructed arguments. It is also possible to clearly expose oneself and the mental gymnastics/poker that can be employed to try to make a turd smell good. Your fear of Sam's ability to go there is well placed and your piece enlightening....and frightening for exposing it.
Your analysis is spot-on, Holly, and rigorously presented, as usual. Thank you.
My immediate gut-brain reaction to the tweet thread was 2 things:
- He was flailing. He knew he was flailing. What he may not have known was that his ‘signature’ calm articulation was not going to save the day.
- He danced around concepts like ethics, impropriety, wisdom, and then, in the final tweet, hunkered down with: ‘I never endorsed anything illegal.’ A word popped off in my brain when I read that. The word: Clintonesque. ………. A huge tell.
YES. I almost used "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..." as my example of self-delusion, but went with one more focused on a person/group's self-assessment of their motivation, finding it more relevant. But that one was salient.
That thread is mind-blowing. I get that Harris really doesn't like Trump, but it seems to me what he really hates is Straw Trump as depicted in the media, which is not necessarily the same as the real man. In the video he states a ton of things that Trump "did" without specifics (e.g. Trump doxxed people), which suggests he is just repeating what he heard other people say without digging in to see if the accusations where valid. Also his hate, his Trump Derangement Symptoms, mean he cannot accept that Trump might actually be the lesser of two evils in these elections and he can't grasp that not everyone agrees with him about the evilness of the Orange-haired one versus the evilness of his opponents.
I found the laptop tweet to be most telling because both laptops - Weiner's and Biden's - showed possible evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the malfeasance of Trump's opponents that were IMHO at least as bad as anything Trump was accused of.
In fact I am still 6 years on, absolutely furious about Clinton's email server, the fact the emails of hers appeared on her staffer's boyfriend's laptop and all that. Not only did she flagrantly violate state department and general US Government regulations, she also clearly and knowingly sought to hide what she had done and she got away with it. Plus so far as we can tell (see sought to hide) her server was sitting there vulnerable to any skript-kiddie who wanted to do an exchange hack let alone the various cyber teams of nation states. My assumption, ever since I learned bout that damn server, is that all of the US's rivals and many of her allies read most of her emails and therefore knew precisely what the US was planning in foreign relations for most of her tenure as Secretary of State. I don't think that quite rose to the level of treason as defined in the constitution, but if someone had accused her of it and a jury convicted her I'd have been fine with that outcome because she sure as heck was giving the US's enemies "Aid and Comfort".
Hunter Biden's laptop and the apparent evidence of the corruption that is shows may actually be not as harmful to the US but that's not exactly a high bar.
I don't know enough about the email server to say much, but the people freaking out about Trump's closet (when he had the plenary power to declassify things, and she didn't) amuse me. No skript-kiddie can hack a piece of paper in a closet. One is much more dangerous than the other.
I am a good person > I hate Trump> the only way this can be so (because I am a good person), is that he is the embodiment of EVIL (not a blowhard, jerk, average politician, ruthless/unethical businesman, average selfish American, nice guy, etc...) > therefore I can justify anything that is done (with or without evidence of the EVIL done by the very bad man) to him and still be a good person. Sadly, people emote better than they think and it seems to be worse with every generation. Meanwhile we are all drowning in the wash of Trump news and distracted from all the other crap our perfidious government is doing.
If this had been many other intellectuals, the fans (for want of a better word) would have taken it more in stride. People are taking this more personally, because of his philosophy.
> Harris gave no limiting principle to his position that stopping Trump by hiding information from the voters (which is, again, itself unequivocally and absolutely lying by the standard he set in his book about lying) was justified by any means necessary.
His limiting principle seems to be that it's merely disinformation, and not actual election fraud. The justification he gives in the interview is that the information space is already so full of disinformation that this is not an escalation.
So a steelman of Harris' position might be: Democracy has always accepted that election campaigns are necessarily contests for power in which each side tries to shape the narrative for his benefit and is countered by the other side doing the same. Within this game, players -- and especially Trump -- routinely engage in tricks much more deceitful than hiding the laptop story. For liberals to scruple at this would be to tie one arm behind their back in an fight against a dirty brawler whereas democracy requires an even fight.
I'd be interested in whether you buy such an argument, and if not, why not.
I thought about this. I would buy it from many people, but not the author of a book against Lying that specifically calls out "tactical silences" as lies. Also, once you invoke the corpses of children as being less important than saving humanity from an asteroid heading for earth, turning around claiming you wouldn't endorse anything illegal simply lacks credibility. It's like that meme of the guy sweating and wondering what button to push. One is marked "save earth from hurtling asteroid" and the other "do something illegal."
Either he has morally justified illegal actions, or Trump is not an existential threat. One or the other. They really are mutually exclusive.
I would be a lot more generous to others, but others didn't publish a book on lying and haven't made a fortune positioning themselves as a person of spiritual and ethical depth worthy to be followed. Harris published that book and has positioned himself thus.
I think you just nailed it. For many people in "comfortable indoor jobs with no heavy lifting" Trump is an existential threat because he threatens to put them out of their comfy offices/cubicles and onto the job market where they will be competing with thousands of former colleagues for a limited number of non government funded positions that are "comfortable indoor jobs with no heavy lifting".
That's a disaster because they have mortgages and car leases and credit card debt and student loans and so on that have to be paid off. Plus they currently have social capital as being perceived as influential/important etc. I don't know what the solution is because the country (the world TBH because this isn't just an American phenomenon) needs to find a solution. There are way too many people whose only contribution to society seems to be moving paper/electrons around and generally speaking blocking other people from doing what they want to do. However those people are going to fight anyone and any group/movement that threatens their cozy life style
The hypocrisy still seems more a symptom of hillariously profound TDS than any kind of villainy.
That's still dangerous. There is a utlitarian-to-athoritarian pipeline which I could go on about at tedious length. Guru Harris is generally self aware enough to swim against that current, but when the Subject of Derangement comes up, he loses his bearings swims as hard as he can the other way.
Agreed. The authoritarianism with him is legit scary. He would conclude that 74 million Americans violated the TOS of voting (or at least the TOS voting *should* have) and just disregard their voice, if he could. Which is terrifying.
Yes he's headed that way. But he's not there yet. So let's hope he never gets there. Thank you for praying for him, and may your good karma benefit him ;)
There's a lot of truth in this. Buddhism is a religion that doesn't require fidelity to any notions beyond the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path.
I have sort of the opposite problem. I sometimes **wish** I was capable of belief. It seems to offer a lot of people a lot of solace, at times. But even having been raised in a religious household, I just... don't.
Yeah, but it was a pretty rough realization at 15 or so that I just didn't experience this thing that so many other people (and all of my family) did.
I have since grown used to that experience, but it's just so central to so many people's lives. I dunno. Just another way I don't really feel like I fit in with my species, I guess.
> Buddhism is a religion that doesn't require fidelity to any notions beyond the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold path.
Yes, and, but. The "but" part is that nearly every Buddhist in history, all the way from the Buddha down to my grandma believed in all kinds of stuff like magical powers, rebirth etc. We can interpret the texts in ways that square with Western rationalism, but it's a bit of a stretch
The "and" part though is that Buddhism requires even less than you say. It's a practice of *investigating* the claims of the Dhamma. You are allowed to be skeptical of them, as long as you investigate them dilligently according to the instructions.
But even this is an act of faith (saddhā) and Secularist Sam won't go there, he will investigate the Dhamma where where his reason tells him is reasonable to investigate and no more. He is being honest when he says he is no a Buddhist.
Your "but" here is true historically but becoming less so. I am part of a Buddhist community and believe in none of this; nor do any of my fellows, to the best of my knowledge. The more people find Buddhism through a route of there's-no-god-but-I-still-need-peace-of-mind-spirituality-and-discipline the less this will be true.
Also, while it matters to some extent what Buddhists believe, if Buddhism *itself* is going to get "charged" with that, then Christianity has to answer for just about all physical abuse of children in the United States, which isn't really fair.
> Your "but" here is true historically but becoming less so ... The more people find Buddhism through a route of there's-no-god-but-I-still-need-peace-of-mind-spirituality-and-discipline the less this will be true.
True enough. Western rationalist Buddhism is a real and vibrant thing, and no less orthodox than older traditions with distinguished pedigrees.
But I'm not really "charging" Buddhism with the sin of teaching magic & rebirth. After half a life of ding-donging I now call myself a Buddhist and I temper my skepticism about those things until I understand what they mean.
This seems right, yes. Thank you.
Thanks, Holly.
Thank YOU.
And I imagine most of your readers have encountered at least one person who would absolutely concur with Harris, here.
Probably a lot more than one. "Oh, those stupid hicks in flyover country" is a declaration that those people aren't really entitled to vote. That's a pretty horrifying attitude to have in a constitutional republic that uses the mechanisms of democracy to mediate disputes between factions. It places people in the position of not being able to trust the mechanisms of government to mediate those disputes. That the law will protect them as well, and that they are even still within the embrace of the concept of "law". That those mechanisms will be anything approaching "fair", and fairness is a fairly deep level thing that's wired even into our close cousins, the chimpanzees.
How do other factions who are outside the law settle their disputes? Well, in this country, it's often labeled "gang violence". And those are typically fairly small groups.
Y'know, I really can't say that I'm particularly enjoying our descent into the Endarkenment. (Hat tip to Billy Beck for coining that one.)
"Endarkenment" -- yeah, that's it. Damn.
Further: the people who concur with Harris are running mainstream media. I wish it weren't true, because that's dangerous AF. But it is true.
Yeah. And I don't think they have any idea how dangerous what they're doing is. Trying to gaslight half of an entire country is likely to produce some kickback, eventually.
Thanks for doing this. It is easy to be swayed by elaborate, well articulated, and well constructed arguments. It is also possible to clearly expose oneself and the mental gymnastics/poker that can be employed to try to make a turd smell good. Your fear of Sam's ability to go there is well placed and your piece enlightening....and frightening for exposing it.
Thank you!
Your analysis is spot-on, Holly, and rigorously presented, as usual. Thank you.
My immediate gut-brain reaction to the tweet thread was 2 things:
- He was flailing. He knew he was flailing. What he may not have known was that his ‘signature’ calm articulation was not going to save the day.
- He danced around concepts like ethics, impropriety, wisdom, and then, in the final tweet, hunkered down with: ‘I never endorsed anything illegal.’ A word popped off in my brain when I read that. The word: Clintonesque. ………. A huge tell.
YES. I almost used "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..." as my example of self-delusion, but went with one more focused on a person/group's self-assessment of their motivation, finding it more relevant. But that one was salient.
That thread is mind-blowing. I get that Harris really doesn't like Trump, but it seems to me what he really hates is Straw Trump as depicted in the media, which is not necessarily the same as the real man. In the video he states a ton of things that Trump "did" without specifics (e.g. Trump doxxed people), which suggests he is just repeating what he heard other people say without digging in to see if the accusations where valid. Also his hate, his Trump Derangement Symptoms, mean he cannot accept that Trump might actually be the lesser of two evils in these elections and he can't grasp that not everyone agrees with him about the evilness of the Orange-haired one versus the evilness of his opponents.
I found the laptop tweet to be most telling because both laptops - Weiner's and Biden's - showed possible evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the malfeasance of Trump's opponents that were IMHO at least as bad as anything Trump was accused of.
In fact I am still 6 years on, absolutely furious about Clinton's email server, the fact the emails of hers appeared on her staffer's boyfriend's laptop and all that. Not only did she flagrantly violate state department and general US Government regulations, she also clearly and knowingly sought to hide what she had done and she got away with it. Plus so far as we can tell (see sought to hide) her server was sitting there vulnerable to any skript-kiddie who wanted to do an exchange hack let alone the various cyber teams of nation states. My assumption, ever since I learned bout that damn server, is that all of the US's rivals and many of her allies read most of her emails and therefore knew precisely what the US was planning in foreign relations for most of her tenure as Secretary of State. I don't think that quite rose to the level of treason as defined in the constitution, but if someone had accused her of it and a jury convicted her I'd have been fine with that outcome because she sure as heck was giving the US's enemies "Aid and Comfort".
Hunter Biden's laptop and the apparent evidence of the corruption that is shows may actually be not as harmful to the US but that's not exactly a high bar.
I don't know enough about the email server to say much, but the people freaking out about Trump's closet (when he had the plenary power to declassify things, and she didn't) amuse me. No skript-kiddie can hack a piece of paper in a closet. One is much more dangerous than the other.
Sam should read: "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurter. At the moment, he is full of it. Seriously, it is a good little book and he'd just stop.
YES!
Sam Harris is the Keith Raniere of public intellectuals.
Brava,
I am a good person > I hate Trump> the only way this can be so (because I am a good person), is that he is the embodiment of EVIL (not a blowhard, jerk, average politician, ruthless/unethical businesman, average selfish American, nice guy, etc...) > therefore I can justify anything that is done (with or without evidence of the EVIL done by the very bad man) to him and still be a good person. Sadly, people emote better than they think and it seems to be worse with every generation. Meanwhile we are all drowning in the wash of Trump news and distracted from all the other crap our perfidious government is doing.
If this had been many other intellectuals, the fans (for want of a better word) would have taken it more in stride. People are taking this more personally, because of his philosophy.
> Harris gave no limiting principle to his position that stopping Trump by hiding information from the voters (which is, again, itself unequivocally and absolutely lying by the standard he set in his book about lying) was justified by any means necessary.
His limiting principle seems to be that it's merely disinformation, and not actual election fraud. The justification he gives in the interview is that the information space is already so full of disinformation that this is not an escalation.
So a steelman of Harris' position might be: Democracy has always accepted that election campaigns are necessarily contests for power in which each side tries to shape the narrative for his benefit and is countered by the other side doing the same. Within this game, players -- and especially Trump -- routinely engage in tricks much more deceitful than hiding the laptop story. For liberals to scruple at this would be to tie one arm behind their back in an fight against a dirty brawler whereas democracy requires an even fight.
I'd be interested in whether you buy such an argument, and if not, why not.
I thought about this. I would buy it from many people, but not the author of a book against Lying that specifically calls out "tactical silences" as lies. Also, once you invoke the corpses of children as being less important than saving humanity from an asteroid heading for earth, turning around claiming you wouldn't endorse anything illegal simply lacks credibility. It's like that meme of the guy sweating and wondering what button to push. One is marked "save earth from hurtling asteroid" and the other "do something illegal."
Either he has morally justified illegal actions, or Trump is not an existential threat. One or the other. They really are mutually exclusive.
I would be a lot more generous to others, but others didn't publish a book on lying and haven't made a fortune positioning themselves as a person of spiritual and ethical depth worthy to be followed. Harris published that book and has positioned himself thus.
"or Trump is not an existential threat"
I think you just nailed it. For many people in "comfortable indoor jobs with no heavy lifting" Trump is an existential threat because he threatens to put them out of their comfy offices/cubicles and onto the job market where they will be competing with thousands of former colleagues for a limited number of non government funded positions that are "comfortable indoor jobs with no heavy lifting".
That's a disaster because they have mortgages and car leases and credit card debt and student loans and so on that have to be paid off. Plus they currently have social capital as being perceived as influential/important etc. I don't know what the solution is because the country (the world TBH because this isn't just an American phenomenon) needs to find a solution. There are way too many people whose only contribution to society seems to be moving paper/electrons around and generally speaking blocking other people from doing what they want to do. However those people are going to fight anyone and any group/movement that threatens their cozy life style
The hypocrisy still seems more a symptom of hillariously profound TDS than any kind of villainy.
That's still dangerous. There is a utlitarian-to-athoritarian pipeline which I could go on about at tedious length. Guru Harris is generally self aware enough to swim against that current, but when the Subject of Derangement comes up, he loses his bearings swims as hard as he can the other way.
Agreed. The authoritarianism with him is legit scary. He would conclude that 74 million Americans violated the TOS of voting (or at least the TOS voting *should* have) and just disregard their voice, if he could. Which is terrifying.
Yes he's headed that way. But he's not there yet. So let's hope he never gets there. Thank you for praying for him, and may your good karma benefit him ;)