Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Harris is a fan of Buddhism, but not as a religion. It's kind of a thing. It's really only possible to do with a religion you view in the abstract whose texts are in a language you don't read and whose temples you don't visit and whose practitioners you don't talk with.
My point though was a little more fundamental. Why do people like this, who revel in their factual ignorance and lack of background in the things they discuss, get listened to for "ideas"?
|
Harris lived in India and Nepal and studied and practiced with notable Buddhists. I don’t know what languages he speaks.
To your point more broadly, I think Harris is uniquely lucid and inquisitive. When he questioned Murray, he dismantled some of Murray’s points using science rather than insisting Murray was morally repugnant for even addressing the third rail issues he has. That’s a much more satisfying conversation than just calling Murray names. He’s enlightening listeners in that regard. He’s also banishing the dim sorts who don’t grasp the science and just like to call people racists, sexists, phobes, etc.
On Islam, however, Harris is rigid. And I think noting that it is the “problem religion” of the moment without explaining the geopolitical reasons for that is disingenuous and preempts necessary debate.
Harris is a much needed thinker. But like any thinker, you have to assess him issue by issue. Assessing Harris as an “identity” is worthless.
Threaded Mode