Greatest philosophers of our time

>usual criteria involve academic accomplishment, publishing of philisophical books, adhering to a certain rigor and style of discourse, creating formal arguments without flaws in them, etc.
>usual criteria involve academic accomplishment,
>usual criteria

This does not form the basis of an argument.

So what have he published or is this just an epic meme I've missed?

Real-Time Relationships: The Logic of Love

The Handbook of Human Ownership: A Manual for New Tax Farmers

Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)

On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion

The God of Atheists

I'm afraid it does, since you have to allow for the possibility of anyone being able to arbitrarily make their own definitions; which is formally valid as long as they're internally self consistent.

Between you and I, we could define a "philosopher" as

>Someone who ejects high volumes of mucus out of their nose

I currently have a bad cold, and am spewing out a lot of snot right now, so that makes me a "philosopher" as long as we're consistent with this definition.

Given the impossibility of establishing one "correct" definition as opposed to anyone's individual private definition, we would then have to appeal to a societal consensus.

>Between you and I, we could define a "philosopher" as

>>Someone who ejects high volumes of mucus out of their nose

That's absurd and you know, provide a valid argument if you wish to continue interacting with me further.

You're not making an argument, neighbor. Definition of terms is a valid and widely used technique, and as long as the definition is internally consistent, the construction is valid.

Now yes, the example I chose was absurd, and deliberately so, but that doesn't make it invalid simply because it strains your credulity or goes against the layman usage of the word. So please, provide an actual rebuttal.

This is my thread, I decided what constitutes a valid argument in it.

To basis your entire argument off of "words have arbitrary meaning" is not an argument. I regret to inform you of this. I have won this debate.

Wow, I didn't realize Stef actually went to Veeky Forums.

While you're here, can I ask why you look constipated in so many of your videos? Are you getting enough fiber?

>ad hominem

Not an argument!

Stefan "One Dollar Man" Molyneux
Stefan "Hand Solo" Molyneux
Stefan "I'll shove my (thunder)f00t up your ass" Molyneux
Stefan "Child Abuse is my Ruse" Molyneux
Stefan "FOO in the loo" Molyneux
Stefan "Frozen is a feminist agenda" Molyneux
Stefan "Shoot to Thrill" Molyneux
Stefan "The amount of antitheses, in relation to my theses, in your sentence equals to none, zero, null" Molyneux

Here I posted an actual philosopher

This is my favorite bit of philosophical advice from Stefan.

youtube.com/watch?v=EUTQSoMy04w

Thoughts? It really makes you think.

>Claims to be against state violence
>Says he's an ancap
>Doesn't support Libertarian party or any ancaps
>Supports Donald Trump

100% retard

The difference is that he sees Trump as a father figure rather than an abusive mother

While we are posting "Philosophers"

I see this shitposted a lot on here, but what is the context?
I feel like he followed that up with something.

Does he actually have a sophisticated non-question begging reason for opposing government?

All i've heard from him is the typical libertarianisn circularity, that socialism is wrong because it involves force and we know socialism involves force because it is wrong

>the typical libertarianism circularity
>that socialism is wrong because it involves force
do you actually think Libertarianism is an anti-socialist reactionary movement?
Lots of Libertarians have few issues with Socialism besides force. Hence, many idealistic societies in libertarian ideals is one of equality under a near non-existing state. Look at the Libertarian left, and at Libertarian Socialists. There is more overlap with Socialist ideals than there is with many other ideologies.
Your presumption that a political position must revolve around socialism or be centered on opposition against it makes me think that you haven't bothered to look deeply into anything but your own beliefs and how to reinforce them.

> do you actually think Libertarianism is an anti-socialist reactionary movement?

Hey sorry I wasn't being clear- I was using socialism to mean any kind of non-private property orientated set of property rights. anything that in libertarian parlance would break the NAP. I was tempted to use the word 'government' but that felt too restrictive.

>comparing alex jones (a fat memer scaremonger) to stefan (an intelligent philospher)

Not an argument.

>Stephan
>intelligent

Top kek. Go read Danny Sahar'a comments on UPB to see how doltish Stephan is.

Reminder

What???

Are you ready to take the Red Peel?

>look this up
>credentials
>blogger on blog spot

Not even going to read it.

As opposed to the writers credentials? Which are what exactly?

Also, dismissing a thought because of the source? Not an argument.

i'm quite certain his wiki didn't mention philosopher before. who edited it?

Recognised and internationally respected philosopher.

>Stefan Basil Molyneux (/stɛˈfæn ˈmɑːlJnjuː/; born September 24, 1966) is an Irish-born Canadian philosopher. Molyneux's areas of interest include anarcho-capitalism, secular ethics, libertarianism, cryptocurrencies, and familial relationships.

Check his wiki page for more information.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

>Universally Preferable Behaviour (UPB)
I'll have a read tomorrow and come back later to bitch about it if it's shit.

>Recognized

Yeah I bet it's every "intellectual's" dream to be featured on RT.

I don't see any degree or even evidence of taking a philosophy class at an accredited university there

Sahar>Molyneaux

>If you did not read philosophy at a statist insitution you are not a philosopher!

Not an argument.

youtube.com/watch?v=g9b7NheAsdc

No, it isn't. It's a rebuttal to the dismissal of Sahar for "lacking credentials"; which, by the way, is not an argument.

You should really read through his comments. The stress it'll put on your brain might shake some of your inane dogmatic assertions out.

He's timeless.

Holy fuck Molyneaux is such a hack.

Didn't watch, not an argument.

bleeding heart retard

Remember when he got BTFO by Papa Chomsky?
youtube.com/watch?v=GUs_Q_rfl9I

>those sad nods

>noam chomsky

This is Veeky Forums not /pol/.

It very much does. Usual criteria is a perfectly decent way to define things in philosophy.

>I'll start, provide arguments if you disagree.
>doesn't provide an argument

He jacked off in the middle of the street because he was hungry..... Marcus was better

Stefan is more interested in the $$$ than he is philosophy. His 'philosophy', itself, doesn't venture very far outside of "WE ARE ALL SLAVES AND WE NEED TO FREE OURSELVES", which, funnily enough, is pretty much the same thing Marx said. He's also joined the "let's all jerk our little ding dongs off to Trump" fanclub and he likely won't come out until his sticky white goop is literally dripping from the ceiling. When he does come out, he'll probably either pretend that he's still an anarchist (he's not) or he'll gather up the courage to actually be an honest person for once in his pathetic life. Overall, 0/10.

Philein Sophia, bitches'

nunc est bibendum

He's not to bad, but when he brings up iq I always cringe.

First of all, there has been no argument to prove that he is neither a great philosopher nor the greatest philosopher.
To prove that he is the greatest philosopher is to prove that there is no greater philosopher.
This can be done in two ways:
He is the greatest possible philosopher.
Or:
There is no philosopher which is greater.

The first option is nonsensical to try to show.
The second is equally nonsensical since you'd have to go through every philosopher alive. And this includes Chomsky, Jonathan Schaffer, Nagel, Latour, Cartwright, Kripke, Parfit, Chalmers, Butler, Mumford, Žižek etc., all people who mostly wouldn’t agree with each other and would take ages to understand.

There is the argument that he is not a philosopher at all provided by:
This is not a counter-argument:
Since usual criteria is how we define words.
Remember that dictionary definitions are primarily descriptions of how we use language.
Etymology does not show how we use language either.
Examples of this:
Libertarian (the political stance) has changed meaning and become two different words on how it is used in America/Europe.
In Swedish the word 'rolig' has become to mean “funny” when the first meaning was akin to "calm."
English has adopted and mistranslated several words from French such 'mansion', 'sensible', 'essay' etc., but it is used in a new way.

With that said. Within the philosophical canon things are given precise meanings to understand what we are talking about so we don't talk past each other. This is usually provided by consensus etc.
It is also possible to define new terms, but if use the same syntax as an already existing word, then you're running the mistake of using the fallacy of equivocation.

CONT.

>This is my thread, I decided what constitutes a valid argument in it.

An example is this. You may use the word 'valid' but it is simply a word with identical syntax to the canonical word 'valid'.

This is a more formal definition of valid, taken from IEP:
>A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

Also, if you use this idea of how we define words, and if they would somehow be connected with the actual use of the word, you’ll end up in subjective meaning relativism, and thus also end up in abandoning a universal correspondence theory of truth.

A sound argument is an argument which is valid and the premises are true.

Furthermore, an argument can be valid and be unsound. An example of such an argument in my opinion is Gödel’s proof of God. He proves with UNTRUE premises that God exists, but he does so in a valid way. Remember also that an argument may contain HIDDEN premises. An example of such an argument is this, where hidden arguments are in parentheses.

All men are mortal.
(Socrates is a man.)
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Most people would agree to this argument without ‘Socrates is a man’ explicitly stated.
So an argument can be SOUND without being explicitly valid.

Outside of formal logic/mathematics etc., the main criterion of an argument is that it is sound.

If we accept the etymological use of ‘philosopher’ we would run into the problem Socrates had, where a dog became a philosopher since the dog was afraid of the unknown and loved the known (the dog loved wisdom).
Cont.

After Voltaire aided the enlightenment with trying to separate philosophy from science, another necessary condition of philosophy includes some kind of non-empirical deduction. This also proves how the universal use of ‘philosophy’ has changed.

But most importantly, if we are not careful, a lot of what we have seen as philosophy might disappear. I would argue that Eastern philosophers are not philosophers whatsoever since they don’t follow the Western tradition of philosophy. Why? Because philosophy has always historically been antagonistic with explanations from Mythos, that will say poems, fables, myths and history. They have been interested in deductive and investigatory arguments about here and now.

A demagogue/sophist on the other hand doesn’t care. And we all would agree that a demagogue/sophist is NOT a philosopher. An example of such sophistry is Deepak Chopra, who uses physical technical terms to create a mysticism wholly disconnected from physics.

Thus, we ought to say that a philosopher must use the canonical or some kinds of accepted definitions as a basis for their philosophy. They may introduce new definitions, but preferably not use a syntax which matches an already existing word to prevent equivocation.

The problem with Stefan Molyneux is that:
1. He does not engage in the philosophical canon/use philosophical jargon.
2. He advises against looking up other arguments/philosophers and engaging in the philosophical canon.
3. He is generally dishonest and uses technical terms wrong, if he does it.

Thus, as above stated, he is not a philosopher; instead he is basically a cult leader (I have not shown this, but it should be clear to anyone).

Therefore, he cannot be the greatest philosopher.

Also, /thread.

lol he took the b8

>Greatest philosophers of our time.

This guy.
>modern
>philosopher
>greatest reach

Cognitive science would be completely different without him. Easy candidate.

John Green on Anselm's argument for God.
Fills the checklist of undergrads' misunderstandings.

Was just thinking Chalmers. Guy's no lightweight.

>philosopher

But all he talks about is contemporary politics, namely american presidential election, economy and immigration.
Not much of a philosopher, is he? More like generic person who gets angry at news on Youtube.

Lol republican click bait is not philosophy. This turd is nothing but a snake oil salesman. he has found his market of gullible funders and just says anything to appease them so the checks keep rolling in. Some of his best moments are trying to justify an unarmed man being shot in the back by a police officer and the man chocked out for selling loose cigarettes. Really sticks to his position on the "free" market.

I suppose this is not an argument.

The context is that he's a massive retard.
He doesn't want to have a constructive dialogue with people he disagrees with but rather wants to kill them.

If we want to talk politically charged philosophers, and exclude John Rawls for no longer being of this world, then Peter Singer is probably and clearly the most influential. Taking utilitarianism to its natural conclusions, eh? Or just showing what it really entails.

...

That's actually a pretty entertaining video.
I love all his media critiques.

It's almost cute how Molyneux slowly gets red-pilled by /pol/ shit and has to adapt his political stances.

One of these days he's going to reject his anarcho-meme and go full NatSoc.

Remember when Stefan proved that gun violence is based on race, and not on poverty, population density or culture?

youtu.be/4uVPvbw-k18

NatSoc is strong state, weak individual.
Molyneux is for no state or weak state, and strong individual.
I don't think its possible for him to flip that much.

I really don't know who Molyneux is. Must be a meme. I thought this thread was about philosophers. I mean, Zizek would be more relevant, as much as I hate to say it.

Zizek and the neo-atheists are probably the closest things to popular modern philosophers.

I believe he can change that much since his philosophy is generally a pretext to not endanger his own rights etc.
Blacks need help?
>Insert libertarian argument that institutional racism doesn't exist.
Muslims are coming?
>STATE MUST PROTECT US!

Yeah I was half-kidding.
But take his refugee/immigration stance for example, closed borders are generally incompatible with libertarian/anarchist ideas but he doesn't seem to care.
Or with atheism, he raged against religion for the longest time and suddenly he's like "fucking atheists are all libtard fedora tippers, I hate them".

Peter Singer is pretty big in the analytic tradition. Although, you may consider him a neo-atheist. Along with Chalmers, I suppose.The later being pretty big in science, as it concerns the mind.

I've seen maybe 30ish videos of his, mostly older stuff, and I'd summarize his philosophy as:

>taxes are theft used to fuel wars
>education, energy production and healthcare are best left private
>old people are cancer who suffocates young people
>you should treat your children like angels and be a stay at home dad like me

I'm kinda guessing this thread is about a /pol/ meme, though, and not philosophy?

it is meme

Yeah, an anarchist philosopher moved away from theorycracting about politics and into commenting on recent events, and /pol/ picked him up since his stance on american president elections and european migrant crisis aligns with the /pol/ hivemind.

Op's pic was unrelated.

You can look for modern philosophers in the Artificial Intelligence and Cloning Ethics debates. There are a few.

I forgot his hard-on for Donald Trump, who's like the biggest statist currently running, completely on the side of state-powered force (police and military), and doesn't even believe in free trade.
But that's all fine as long as he pisses off liberals, I guess.

Cenk might not be the ordinary type of philosopher but he's certainly a political philosopher

he's a pundit.

is that "the young turks" guy

How can he support Trump with these ideals?
He can't.

Cenk "What Armenian Genocide??" Uygur
Cenk "Crush the White Man" Uygur
Cenk "WHERE IS THE PLANE" Uygur
Cenk "Bernie was cool and all but now it's time to vote for Hillary" Uygur

>it's a complicated issue with a variety of contributing factors
Wow, what an amazing an actionable position, Mr. Academic.

Most philosophers are atheists, so he's setting himself with a small minority within the profession. Hopefully he can match Plantinga in defending his position.

...

,,,

lol. what a joke

Libertarianism,if we understand it as classical liberalism,can be opposed to open borders. Anacaps want the landowners to be able to control who can or cant come to the land,and this control maybe totally arbitrary ( closing the borders to goat fuckers for example)

I missed the bit where all philosophy had to be actionable.

>Most philosophers are atheists

Source?

Murder the niggers to reduce murder isnt a good philosophy.

60% of philosophers, 50% of academics, and 2% of the general population are atheist, with different studies and surveys varying a bit on the exact numbers.

The one I saw asked students at a few big universities, according to what they are studying at the moment, and got 72% of philosophers being atheist, more than computer sciences.

yes but Stephan doesn't believe the state has a valid claim and that the existence of a state is immoral because of taxation and other factors.
supporting boarder controls invalidates his own arguments.

I haven't see any of these studies. Do they often define atheism when asking the question, or just ask "are you atheist?"

The Phil Papers survey, Look it up.