DiscoverWaking Up with Sam Harris
Waking Up with Sam Harris

Waking Up with Sam Harris

Author: Sam Harris

Subscribed: 114280Played: 1025630
Share

Description

Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores important and controversial questions about the human mind, society, and current events.

Sam Harris is the author of five New York Times bestsellers. His books include The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, Waking Up, and Islam and the Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz). The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. His writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics—neuroscience, moral philosophy, religion, meditation practice, human violence, rationality—but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.

Harris's work has been published in more than 20 languages and has been discussed in The New York Times, Time, Scientific American, Nature, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, and many other journals. He has written for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Economist, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, The Annals of Neurology, and elsewhere.

Sam Harris received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA.
135 Episodes
Reverse
loading
Comments (173)

Chinaski

have the tarrifs kicked in yet? farmers are fucked..the tarrifs cancel out any gain the tax cuts would have made.

Jun 23rd
Reply

Kane Thomas

my onlu comment is no one ever mentions inflation when discussing ubi.i am yet to listen to this but am put off for tgis reason

Jun 22nd
Reply

Mike Smith

So, when asked how we pay for it, he says that our government doesn't spend our money well. Then he wants that very government to manage these payments. Also, this is a childish level of understanding economics. "We have the money".. ?.. Have you checked out the national debt? Does anyone really think that entrepreneurship is dependent upon someone having spare time? I've started four businesses, two of which are very successful. One thing I can tell you for certain is that you either have it in you or you don't. No amount of time spent on your couch paid for by someone else will build your interest in starting a business. I had really hoped to hear something helpful, but this guy is just trying to win the auction for desirable outcomes

Jun 20th
Reply

jagsonska

Mike Smith Couldn't of said it better myself!

Jun 20th
Reply

Chris M

cant stand this lady

Jun 15th
Reply

Bobby Kittens

As a recent subscriber to polyamory, Miller's comments and defense of it are so spot on with my own feelings and experiences (and that of my wife). If I had a printout of his comments I would share it with everyone who gives us a weird look when we tell them about our lifestyle. I think it would change a lot of minds.

Jun 8th
Reply

Aaron Williams

This guy loves polyamory

Jun 7th
Reply

Adam Itinerant

This Geoffrey Miller episode is among my favourites. I found it riveting and enlightening from start to finish, and the questioners were great too. Thank you Sam and Geoffrey and the audience.

Jun 6th
Reply

Bobby Kittens

Adam Itinerant Agreed. One of those too-rare WU episodes I want to get a full transcript of so I can read it over and over.

Jun 8th
Reply

Joel Here

Great episode!!!

Jun 5th
Reply

TheRealJacob98

Please post the show you did from the Long Center in Austin, Sam!

Jun 4th
Reply

Ajax Stifler

TheRealJacob98 me likey noice

Jun 16th
Reply

Will Greer

My compromise is this. A over simplified summary of jordans view to me, is that there is a difference between practical "truth" and what i will call "ultimate truth" which is the truth only an omniscient being can know, and that that difference is NOT trivial, especialy in regards to a truths overal bearance on humanity. Essentialy, "truth" is multi fasceted and multi level. Sams idea of truth is that the definition of practical truth is the only definition of truth that will allow for proper intellectual discourse, or at least the best one in regards to NOT complicating the conversation beyond what is neccessary. My solution would have been to simply decide from the time they recognized this difference that they would speak of truth from the practical, easier, perspective and understanding that something is either true OR not true WITH a spoken understanding that any such percieved truth may or may not be "ultimately true" from the understanding that we might be wrong, or that it may not be a "higher truth" in that it may be right but just not the WHOLE truth, or may not be a truth that fits well into surrounding truths, constituting a MISPLACEMENT of truth, whether by our ability to grasp it, or our maturity to handle it. I think this would have allowed conversation to go on, while still allowing peterson his definition of truth. The only reason ALL of the beforementioned supposition would come up, is if it was crucial to some other philosophy, but they wouldnt have to go over it all again, with the agreement of the possibility of those suppositions, which is reasonable, making it less impractical than sam postured itt would be.

May 31st
Reply

Daniel Knob

looks like Joe Rogan beat you to the chase!

May 28th
Reply

Joel Here

Holy shit this conversation was exhausting. Keep it up Sam - your content is wonderfully inspiring!

May 28th
Reply

JJ Todilinus

The philosopher is right. But the human ego refuses to believe it.

May 26th
Reply

Peter Saarloos

I thought this was a good conversation. Although it was polarized all throughout, as a direct result it captures the paradox between two modes of thinking, the one postmodern (Klein) and the other empiricist (Harris). The former contends that the means by which the majority measures will always be a disfavor to the minority; the latter emphasizes that with the right methodology this bias can be overcome and an underlying truth can be reached. I honestly come away from this not completely sure what to think. There is no way to come to any conclusion without looking at the evidence. I am inclined to believe Harris that the evidence will always point some way, because genetic theory is real and if there are visible differences between ethnic groups, there likely are mental differences as well. Additionally, I think scientific method can be pure and unbiased and divorced from social bias. Still, this should have no or even positive impact on social policy, and so we should talk about it. The conversational is an interesting meeting of two minds who both act in sincerely and good faith, both of them baffled that the other is backing the wrong side of this debate.

May 25th
Reply

Superdino880

Peter Saarloos i can not agree enough I think it is a perfect example of two different thought processes and really gives an insight on ezras side which I don't think I have ever had before. While this whole conversation was one big loop it still has something to offer. I don't agree with ezra I think that the weight of what happened in America has nothing to do with the scientific facts I was able to get a better although it is slight understanding of his side. I think this conversation was a lot more constructive than it appeared to be.

Jun 5th
Reply

Mohammed Usman

Jim

May 24th
Reply

Карен Мамян

A very thoughtful and interesting discussion. Thank you.

May 17th
Reply

Chinaski

Sam Harris is so 2016

May 11th
Reply

David Page

love

May 9th
Reply

B Knapp

don't realize interviewer was an atheist till much much later...hear it all!!!

May 6th
Reply

Tyler Coleman

yes sam but you are deliberately and exclusively looking at one side of the coin. only the negative aspects of religion. peterson is at the least able to show true utility in the bible. one could argue Hitler used science for the same awful things you acuse religion of. shiukd we move past science bc someone manipulated scientific thought? I enjoy listening to both of you but this is clearly a chip on your shoulder. I'm afraid it gives you a blind spot. much love ✌

May 6th
Reply

Tyler Coleman

Jonathan Jordan no need I remember the episode. its an opinion not a test. if our answers dont match I dont have to rewatch until I reach the same conclusion as you. but I will say that after finishing the episode and listening to the ezra Klein interview I'm definitely grateful hes more confrontational than not lol peace man ✌

May 10th
Reply

Jonathan Jordan

Tyler Coleman go back and listen.

May 10th
Reply
loading
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store