Arizzi

I see so much hostility towards Sam from Leo and I don't know if many of the criticisms against Sam are entirely valid, and I feel that perhaps Leo hasn't spent a significant amount of time listening to him speak. I wouldn't know. But I had him pegged as someone who is actually concerned with the truth. I have seen him wrestle with new ideas, and change his mind over the course of a podcast. One of his key guiding principles in a discussion should be to be charitable to the other side, and try to address the strongest possible arguments from that side. He is a meditator and has written a book about the nature of consciousness which promoted spirituality. This was read by hundreds of thousands of people. I really don't see how one any of this would lead leo to peg him primarily as stage orange. Core Values: Autonomy, materialistic, result-driven Paradigm: Success “I improve myself.” World View: The (makeable) world is full of chances and opportunities and the world can be fully understood by using rational thinking. Life Motto: “I manifest myself through artful calculation.” Life Theme: Accumulate material abundance, individual freedom, and grab opportunities. Life Philosophy: I am responsible for my own wealth, and that is why I develop my skills. I think, therefore I exist I have also heard Sam accused of practicing "Scientism" which I would have to also disagree with. With some atheists I have listened to (I might point to someone like Richard Dawkins), that might be a fairer assessment, however many others, including Sam Harris, very specifically point out that what science fundamentally is our current best guess at what is true, subject to change at any time as we gather more information, and are limited by our own human biases and limitations. These words don't sound like a basis of a religion. Would love to hear everyone's thoughts. Edit: I would also love to hear what you all think of Jordan Peterson. It would be fantastic to to have a video about this.

So actually some of this is stuff that has been on my mind a long time. Some of these things I can agree with but many people you have painted with these labels don't seem to fit them very well at all. I suspect, and I acknowledge completely that this notion may be mistaken, that to some degree your preconceived opinions of him distort your view of his character. I'm sure you would agree and I might reiterate your point that our individual "maps" are not the territory by far. I'm very curious to talk about some of the specific points you brought up. It is true that Harris does demonize and resort to dogma sometimes. I might point to his views on trump and perhaps some of the headline statements he's made about islam. But the core of his speech centered around the idea that specific beliefs matter. It is inconceivable that all religions and their holy books say the same thing. It is also very possible that the teachings themselves of the Koran may lend themselves to more extreme interpretations. Of course whatever effect is also confounded to a large degree with historical and cultural factors of course. But the idea itself is a valid one to my eye, even if I believe that historic and cultural factors are more indicative. However Sam's idea doesn't seem like a demonization to me. About Scientism, I'm also puzzled with the frequency with which you color people with this. Maybe I don't realize how prevalent it is (I feel if it is it is merely that the vast majority of people are ignorant, don't think about it, or care) There is definitely some dogma, but you seem to decry refuting bad evidence. Of course we should be open minded, and we don't comprehend reality, but within the purview of science, as long as we remain open and intellectually honest, rejecting bad or unsubstantiated ideas is a path that leads to greater truth. I would go on but would like to hear thoughts.

@Leo Gura I would second the above, without really seeming to know much about him, you seem to dismiss him outright. I don't see how he is any more or less "religious" than you are about the nature of reality. What about his debating? As for your point on the rational box perhaps I don't understand your position. It is my understanding that you claim that there are infinite realities, or ways that our brain can experience reality, and that they are all equally valid. OK, I don't know what to make of that exactly, and practically I don't know quite what that changes. I'm sure its a powerful experience. Perhaps you mean that one cannot dismiss any claims because in someone else's experience their claims actually are "true." Please do let me know if I am misrepresenting your views. However going away from the philosophical our everyday experience seems to be consistent to a degree, that we can communicate about shared experiences and make scientific laws that most people can agree apply to their reality. (of course one could go down the rabbit hole with philosophy but this does seem to be the case) Of course you can say no it is all subjective, but then we can't really talk about anything can we. To be honest, and I mean this with no malice whatsoever towards you, I feel that you are the same or at least not too far from acting just as Harris does. You defend your beliefs and perspective of reality the same way. Your recent video on the paranormal is an example. You just seem to have become dogmatic about accepting everything as true. Does that make any sense? To me it still feels like preaching and ideology. Please do clarify your point, and correct me if I'm wrong. I'm genuinely interested.

To be honest I don't understand where all this criticism of rationality or Sam Harris? Could someone please explain? Harris is accused of dogmatism however, I've always felt that he's one of the least dogmatic people there are, someone who is devoted to finding out what's true. If someone makes a claim about reality, It is a good course of action to be charitable and give the other person the benefit of the doubt, but if there is no evidence either observed or within reasonable probability (which requires trust of hopefully high-quality sources) it does not seem dogmatic to me not to accept those claims.

I have plans to start a self-actualization/self-development club in my college. My plan is to introduce them to actualized.org, have them start off by writing down their own personal goals, and help them make plans to achieving those goals, suggesting readings to them, telling them to watch Leo's video's... They would do readings, videos, exercises, challenges during the week and then we come back and discuss the material / evaluate our progress during our time together. The questions facing me are: Since most of the people in my college will never have done anything self-help related, I would probably be the only one in the group that is on the path; how do I inspire them to start doing it and keep them committed? What useful purposes could this course serve? What is the best use of our time? I could probably charge an entry fee or get a little funding from the school too. If you have any ideas/suggestions/feedback please do share!