i'm not sure mixing Sartre with autonomous cars is a good idea.



"Hell is other people. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

"Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

"All human actions are equivalent and all are on principle doomed to failure. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

"Life has no meaning the moment you loose the illusion of being eternal. "
Jean-Paul Sartre

I like Harris--he is witty, brilliant, and quite thoughtful. But I also think that it is quite appropriate and telling that the man introduces him as an "iconoclast"--that is, in the good ol' (Biblical) tradition of the ban on images, Harris would seem to want a world where all religious images, institutions, ideologies, etc., would be prohibited from reaching the public.

In my view, one could deny science AS WELL AS religion their sovereign roles, and would not necessarily enter into moral relativism. There is NO discourse that can determine good and evil, because this binary (good/evil) is already a tension that is working at its most fundamental level in human language and experience: it is a tension that, while not representable by language or scientific discourse, is nevertheless common to everyone on an individual as well as shared level. But the problem is that no one field or way of thinking alone (and science is included here) can name this tension, as if to do away with the "problem" of disagreement and dissensus once and for all. Can't be done. Shouldn't be attempted. Why does he use these extreme examples of cultures who poke out children's eyes and shit? Well, he is talking about difference, here, isn't he? And whatever one might think about such ways of living, it is simply UNNATURAL to try and SYNTHESIZE and sublimate difference (on any level) within a single, unifying discourse. Ultimately, to attempt this would be both naive and would run counter to human experience and potential.

The FUNDAMENTAL problem I have with this kind of approach, is that it assumes we should, or even COULD, have a universal ethical system. And even beyond that, it ASSUMES that if such a system were ever to exist, it should (or could) be overseen and mediated by a single interpretive regime (science, religion, philosophy, etc). By INSISTING that we need to find a "system" somewhere, it seems that Harris is falling into the same trap that religious fundamentalists do. Its so reactionary: "Well, where are you going to find a moral SYSTEM then? To whom or what will you answer?" Sounds like the question my friggin bible study teacher used to ask. And in my opinion, Harris is already operating from that mindset.

The below quote from Sartre is inspiring to me. Although Sartre is kind of dated, I think he still proves useful as a reminder of what what is at stake in any discussion about "universal" systems. Sartre believes that the only "universal" and "transcendental" system we could ever have is our own need--which is never our own, but which is always both interior AND shared--to surpass our situation, which is not specific to a given approach or system, but which is a fundamental (in)capacity of man. This capacity, importantly, is also our incapacity. When things like science and religion get out of control (which they always have and will), who will be there to check them if not man, which is the only being who both strives beyond and knows his limits? (...) "Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and, on the other hand, it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. There is no other universe except the human universe, the universe of human subjectivity. This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe) – it is this that we call existential humanism. This is humanism, because we remind man that there is no legislator but himself; that he himself, thus abandoned, must decide for himself; also because we show that it is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation or of some particular realisation, that man can realize himself as truly human." -Jean-Paul Sartre, "Existentialism is a Humanism" (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)

It is already posted. Your embed is better though, maybe bluecliff can replace his youtube playlist for this one

*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Human-All-Too-Human-BBC-Jean-Paul-Sartre

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mauz15.

See also this excellent documentary on Sartre:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Human-All-Too-Human-BBC-Jean-Paul-Sartre

I have the first comment for you:

"To be is to do"--Socrates.
"To do is to be"--Jean-Paul Sartre.
"Do be do be do"--Frank Sinatra.