butkuiss in shambles
our baseline slams puritans
morty writes haikus

Album Rating: 5.0

>Because they feel that they are above them.



They really want to give that impression but thanks to the use of psychedelic drugs we see through them.

drugs for the tool fans
psychedelics open eyes
we can see through you

Album Rating: 2.5

One time when I was tripping balls I had the epiphany I wasn’t going hard enough at the gym. Psychedelics were the reason I broke my great squat plateau of 2017!

Album Rating: 5.0

I don't have anything against puritans who preach against drugs as long as they are not hypocrites or aggressive in their actions. I mean, having morals leads to preaching to a certain degree in certain situations... Some people (here too) are actually preaching when they talk against preaching and they do not even realize lol.



Drugs are a very grey area anyway, very difficult topic to discuss, because personal experiences vary from one person to another a lot, and I really mean A LOT. I like to hear all sides on the topic and I can understand some people hating drugs because of personal trauma (relatives fucked up by them or stuff like that).



"have you ever deadlifted 200kg though?"



I think I would need steroids for that and I don't do drugs (I had to use the opportunity XD)

Album Rating: 1.0

Whether puritan

Or fucking shitfaced wasted

Frost shat on this thread

Album Rating: 5.0

Yeah I guess I should go go back to the philosophy forum for my verbose interpretation of life...



Album good, Tool good, that's all

Album Rating: 2.5

The ape in me misses Maynard yelling into the mic

grey areas
in a long frost post:
apes or men?

Album Rating: 1.0

"Yeah I guess I should go go back to the philosophy forum for my verbose interpretation of life..."



Good idea. You have "learned phil on a forum" energy fs

'you have "learned phil on a forum" energy fs'

about one step up from learned phil from debate streamers

Album Rating: 1.0

Citing Sam Harris is only acceptable because he isn't Jordan Peterson and I'm sick of it

Album Rating: 2.5

I actually really enjoy Sam Harris podcast



Jordan Peterson on the other hand...he is uh, hilariously pretentious



I wonder what his favorite Tool album is

jordan peterson was routinely made fun of during my philosophy degree

a few guys on my course read him and swore he actually had some interesting things to say, but in my opinion 'interesting' is a bare minimum. he certainly says a lot of things that make u go 'huh maybe', and then you examine it for longer than ten seconds and it crumbles

the man is just a blowhard obsessed with being considered a public intellectual

and sam harris is also a joke but certainly less obnoxious than peterson

Album Rating: 2.5

I mean being in a sales financial role (and real estate before this) he absolutely says some useful things about just doing small things (like cleaning your room - even though its a meme, it is true) and posturing yourself to make yourself more confident in day to day life. Being someone who struggles with clinical depression and has to NOT let it consume me in day to day life...yeah



But it is information you can get from like 10 million other fucking books.



It's when he goes into really vague posturing about religion and politics and not addressing ANYTING directly that he makes me cringe too hard to take seriously, and this is coming from a Jew who's not a leftist by any means.

Album Rating: 1.0

If Peterson ever happens to say something useful he's usually stolen it from Jung, Nietzsche, or a self help book. Otherwise he's a formless shell of a person driven by his own narcissism and laziness. He's ideologically inconsistent and as post modern as the 'cultural marxists' he rages against (that "What do you mean by do?" video cracks me up still).



My issues with Harris are much more pedantic: I think that he isn't that good at examining his own biases, particularly regarding Islam, I don't much agree with his thoughts on conciousness and how he connects it to his buddhism (which is nitpicky I know), and despite posturing himself as a public intellectual he has massive blind spots that he doesn't acknowledge that get him in trouble. As far as IDW idiots go, he's probably the least offensive, but I'd consume him with a grain of salt. He's pretty close to scientific and popular consensus on most topics, which I think makes his bad opinions much easier to digest and more covert.

i think youve hit the nail on the head. a lot of his advice is very good in that regard. its the ideological framework he wraps it up in that stinks and shows his poor understanding of philosophy/religion/politics.

My main problem with him is his lack of intellectual humility. He doesnt seem to be able to put his hands up and say 'this is too complicated for me, I really dont understand this and would need to do much more research before I give my opinion or pass judgement'. Instead he just talks and talks and talks doing vague posturing.

Sam Harris is massively guilty of pretending hes an expert of a very wide range of issues, most famously when he waded into the free will debate and demonstrated he hadnt really paid much attention to the long running and diverse body of work going back and forth on free will in philosophy.

I just checked on wikipedia and apparently this is a common theme across all his work (philosophers calling him out for not engaging with the literature)

Album Rating: 5.0

"Good idea. You have "learned phil on a forum" energy fs"



Wrong, I study philosophy as a hobby since I'm 12 lol.



"If Peterson ever happens to say something useful he's usually stolen it from Jung, Nietzsche, or a self help book. Otherwise he's a formless shell of a person driven by his own narcissism and laziness. He's ideologically inconsistent and as post modern as the 'cultural marxists' he rages against (that "What do you mean by do?" video cracks me up still).



My issues with Harris are much more pedantic: I think that he isn't that good at examining his own biases, particularly regarding Islam, I don't much agree with his thoughts on conciousness and how he connects it to his buddhism (which is nitpicky I know), and despite posturing himself as a public intellectual he has massive blind spots that he doesn't acknowledge that get him in trouble. As far as IDW idiots go, he's probably the least offensive, but I'd consume him with a grain of salt. He's pretty close to scientific and popular consensus on most topics, which I think makes his bad opinions much easier to digest and more covert."



You're gonna hate it but I agree with almost everything you said here. I love Sam Harris podcasts because he at least tries or pretends to try to understand opposite positions, and I love the big pauses and shit, but sometimes he just can't admit to being limited (like most people nowadays anyway...)



It's funny cause you give me "closeted pedantic" vibes lol. Don't be afraid my man, no need to pretend to be cool with few words.

im by no means a philosophy expert, all i have is a BA and a partially completed Masters, but i still try to dissuade people from paying attention to these guys because regardless of whether what theyre saying is true or not, i dont think its a useful way to study philosophy/politics/religion

ive gotten much more out of philosophy by reading the classics and following the threads of discussion from the beginning, and those threads almost never end up with these guys but with academics (and all old journal articles are free now anyways, and the ones that arent you can get by emailing the academic themselves)

i just feel like these guys have largely gotten popular because theres an assumption that current public intellectuals write in a clearer and more easily understandable way and that say, the average 15 year old kid who wants to get into this stuff imagines he wont be able to understand Wittgenstein or Plato but will be able to understand Sam Harris. But thats simply not true and i think its sad people imagine these things to be more difficult than they really are