"The Four Horsemen"

[Excited Penguin]

What the hell are you even talking about? What about Nietzsche didn't I understand?

Let me guess. Your favorite philosopher is Sam Harris.

Lulz.

Sam Harris doesn't classify as a philosopher.

He regards himself as one. That's enough for me. It may not be enough for anyone else, I aknowledge that.

Lose the attitude.

[abaris]

Yes you do, if you want to change my mind.

No, I don't. First because it's up to you to inform yourself. Second because I don't give a single shit if I change the minds of - to use your terminology - types like you.

[Excited Penguin]

Yes you do, if you want to change my mind.

No, I don't. First because it's up to you to inform yourself. Second because I don't give a single shit if I change the minds of - to use your terminology - types like you.

Not everyone has the time to inform themselves. But arguably I did just that by reading Harris' opinions on this. Also, mind the if in that sentence and stop being so childish. That won't get you anywhere.

[abaris]

Not everyone has the time to inform themselves. But arguably I did just that by reading Harris' opinions on this.

Well, that's your problem then, not mine. You're admitting to have one sided information, so don't expect me to do your homework or to take your seriously on the matter. Just a hint: The facts and figures can be found on this very board. Repeatedly posted.

[Mudhammam]

What the hell are you even talking about? What about Nietzsche didn't I understand?

Let me guess. Your favorite philosopher is Sam Harris.

Lulz.

My favorite philosopher is Nietzsche. Sam Harris comes pretty close, he's not in the same league however. It's just that I don't know that much philosophy, really. Sorry if I seem biased somehow. Just trying to form an honest opinion on things.

Ok. So what's with the snark? If you objected to something I said, I would like to learn where I erred. If you want to form an honest opinion, maybe you should let go of the bias?

[Excited Penguin]

My favorite philosopher is Nietzsche. Sam Harris comes pretty close, he's not in the same league however. It's just that I don't know that much philosophy, really. Sorry if I seem biased somehow. Just trying to form an honest opinion on things.

Ok. So what's with the snark? If you objected to something I said, I would like to learn where I erred. If you want to form an honest opinion, maybe you should let go of the bias?

Ok, I am officially letting go .

What now?  

[Mudhammam]

Ok. So what's with the snark? If you objected to something I said, I would like to learn where I erred. If you want to form an honest opinion, maybe you should let go of the bias?

Ok, I am officially letting go .

What now?  

If you're interested in philosophy, a good place for anybody to start is Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy." A sample of his writing (or his wife's, who apparently did most of the heavy lifting), and of which might especially apply to your reading of Harris, or Neitzsche, or anyone else:

In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind.

[Excited Penguin]

---

Ok, I am officially letting go .

What now?  

If you're interested in philosophy, a good place for anybody to start is Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy." A sample of his writing (or his wife's, who apparently did most of the heavy lifting), and of which might especially apply to your reading of Harris, or Neitzsche, or anyone else:

In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held. Contempt interferes with the first part of this process, and reverence with the second. Two things are to be remembered: that a man whose opinions and theories are worth studying may be presumed to have had some intelligence, but that no man is likely to have arrived at complete and final truth on any subject whatever. When an intelligent man expresses a view which seems to us obviously absurd, we should not attempt to prove that it is somehow true, but we should try to understand how it ever came to seem true. This exercise of historical and psychological imagination at once enlarges the scope of our thinking and helps us to realize how foolish many of our own cherished prejudices will seem to an age which has a different temper of mind.

---

I have tried reading that book two times so far. I'll be sure to finish it. I remember this quote.
This doesn't mean I can't still agree with Harris or admire Nietzsche.