Where do I start with this 21st century thinker? He has written 10 books on philosophy, psychology, and history

Where do I start with this 21st century thinker? He has written 10 books on philosophy, psychology, and history.
freedomainradio.com/free/
The latest of which is The Art of the Argument
>'The Art of the Argument' shocks the dying art of rational debate back to life, giving you the essential tools you need to fight the escalating sophistry, falsehoods and vicious personal attacks that have displaced intelligent conversations throughout the world. At a time when we need reasonable and empirical discussions more desperately than ever, 'The Art of the Argument' smashes through the brain-eating fogs of sophistry and mental manipulation, illuminating a path to benevolent power for all who wish to take it.

>Civilization is defined by our willingness and ability to use words instead of fists – in the absence of reason, violence rules. ‘The Art of the Argument’ gives you the intellectual ammunition – in one concentrated, entertaining and powerful package – to engage in truly productive, civilization-saving debates. Armed with this book, you will be empowered to speak truth to power, illuminate ignorance, shatter delusions and expose the dangerous sophists within your own life, and around the world.
His book against agnosticism sounds good too.
>Between the poles of strong atheism and strict theism lies agnosticism, the argument that gods are very unlikely, but cannot logically be ruled out as utterly impossible. Agnosticism is considered a cautious, tentative and scientific approach to the question of the existence of gods - Stefan Molyneux's seminal book "Against the Gods?" makes a powerful case against agnosticism and for the positive acceptance of the nonexistence of supernatural beings.
>It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities. We do not accept agnosticism about unicorns, fairies, square circles, pixies or the proposition that two and two make five – why do we create a special exception in the realm of deities? Surely it is because the social cost of rejecting Gods is far higher than the social cost of rejecting goblins.
>"Against the Gods?" provides essential ammunition to those fighting the virus of faith, and clears the mental fog of the irrational middle ground between atheism and theism.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TIMN1yzqpCs
youtube.com/watch?v=NkT6hEti3zA
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Don't read him he's cult leader and a brainlet. Just read Murray Rothbard who he ripped everything off from.

Yeah. I would add Mencken, whom Rothbard lifted half his stuff from

WHY IS THIS ON MY BOARD? WHAT FUCKING HAPPENED? WHY IS EVERY MORON WITH A YOUTUBE CHANNEL AN INTELLECTUAL NOW?

>he didn't start with the Skeptics (tm)

molymeme is breddy cool, he is just theater kid playing a philosopher in youtube, when you learn that you start to love him

I always thought Armoured Skeptic uses that name because he was bullied in high school and now has a channel as a defense mechanism where he's always right and other people can't touch him. Same with Sargon. He uses this historical figure to pretend he's some kind of authority, while in reality, he's just a sad boy that wants to feel powerful.

Sargon is a genuine good person who makes terrible videos.
Haven't watched armored fag and don't plan on it.

He has a masters in history and half a milion followers. He is smarter than you.

he’s also not from anywhere he says he is

he has the weirdest fake accent, which is kinda cool

What do you mean

Why is it fake? Sounds like a typical Canada cuck

Kim Kardashian has 107.9 million followers, and she s rock
H. She must be 215×smarter than Stefan.

wtf I love molymene now

>Sounds like a typical Canada cuck

Molymeme wrote the most precious summary on his old leave le parents website

I refuse to take any advice from bald men.

>21st century
>thinker

you win

>It is not rational to even entertain the possibility of the existence of irrational entities

Does he pretend subatomic particles don't exist?

>The Art of the Argument' shocks the dying art of rational debate back to life

Not an argument.

>giving you the essential tools you need to fight the escalating sophistry, falsehoods and vicious personal attacks that have displaced intelligent conversations throughout the world.

Not an argument.

>At a time when we need reasonable and empirical discussions more desperately than ever

Not an argument.

>'The Art of the Argument' smashes through the brain-eating fogs of sophistry and mental manipulation, illuminating a path to benevolent power for all who wish to take it.

Not an argument.

>Civilization is defined by our willingness and ability to use words instead of fists

Not an argument.

>‘The Art of the Argument’ gives you the intellectual ammunition – in one concentrated, entertaining and powerful package – to engage in truly productive, civilization-saving debates. Armed with this book, you will be empowered to speak truth to power, illuminate ignorance, shatter delusions and expose the dangerous sophists within your own life, and around the world.

Not an argument.

What a fucking hack.

The twice-used metaphor of his books being "ammunition" actually succinctly tells you everything you need to know about Molyneux himself and his fanbase.

she may not be, but you sure are user

why, I'd say you're at least 3463997xsmarter than me

Will there come a day when people stop using Youtube celebs as sources?
Getting really tired of hearing "B-but didn't you see Sargon's last video?' used as an argument in discussions.

He doesn't have a masters degree in History, he is a fucking self published hack, and all universities he has been on are shit.

Sargon has hair. You should listen to him.

Yes he does. From the university of Toronto.

Sargon is actually very smart. He knows his way around philosophy and rational thought and offers great insight into many topical issues as they happen. to ignore him as a resource would be foolish

This but ironically

Use his arguments then. What I'm tired of is people using him as an argument.

he's a manlet though

Would you believe I’ve never watched either of their videos? I only sprout nonsensical opinions that I’ve vaguely heard about. Who should I listen to them?

Film yourself spouting said opinions and you could be one of them.

...

if you are unironically considering listening to youtubers do yourself a favor and listen to actual university lectures instead. youtube is full of them

I’ll do this I guess. Thanks user.

Speaking of which... are there any actual smart people/intellectuals doing videos/podcasts on popular topics (as opposed to academic discussions)?
Or is the whole audio/video domain reserved for dummies?

youtube is mainly right wing land so you won't find much from other points of view.

the zero books podcast old marxist guy who tries to meme is kind of funny sometimes
youtube.com/watch?v=TIMN1yzqpCs

and i just noticed he interviewed the Minotaur of Milwaukee so i know what i'll listen to right now
youtube.com/watch?v=NkT6hEti3zA

Seriously?

I've kinda presupposed he was some bored historian making youtube commentary for a living and taking a more critical stance but then I actually read his piece on Zizek's opinion of Peterson, and god did he trip himself up on that one, not even realizing who Zizek is and writing without any context whatsoever, as if he was talking about a random journalist working for the Sun. Whatever a priori reason I had to invest time listening to his stuff is kinda fading away now. You can't be forgiven if you want to talk about contemporary philosophy with no actual knowledge of contemporary philosophy, it's kind of like pretending to know recent physics without engaging in Peer2Peer scientific exchange.

Memerson aside, the zizek piece was shit and just his usually copy/paste from previous articles sprinkling Memerson name around to pretend his saying something new.

you shouldn't have to read someone's books to understand where he's coming from on a random newspaper article

>you shouldn't have to read someone's books to understand where he's coming from on a random newspaper article

Actually this is a serious problem with contemporary journalism, when you write an opinion piece are you really implying you can divert yourself from whatever context you found yourself in before? Random people like us can read the article and simply say "it's shit", but if we're going to critically analyze it and release our own article, we better provide a better framework than the person we are trying to call stupid.

Dante forgot to add pseudtube posters to the 8th circle of hell.

if you want to write a book or an essay you are free to do it. if you can't write an article that can stand on its own why bother?

i mean i know why zizek does it, he has literally said before that he doesn't care about those political articles so he just copy/pastes a bit, gets the money, and goes on writing the Hegel books he actually cares about.

>you shouldn't have to read someone's books to understand where he's coming from

exactly, fuck nuance! if you communicate in anything other than tweets you can fuck right off from this literature board

we are talking about newspapers articles you fucking retard. nobody is saying to stop reading books, just to learn to write actual articles.

the idea that an "proper" article is one that requires no prior knowledge of the current of thought it belongs to is total intellectual degeneracy. if you want to understand what's being said then it's your responsibility to be an educated person as opposed to demanding to be spoonfed a summary of an author's lifetime of work whenever they dare to write anything. stop being such a fucking baby.

i'm sure you read the whole bibliography from Rob Merrick every time you encounter an article like "Brexit will undermine European security unless new agreement with EU is struck quickly, Theresa May is warned" and you are not making an exception because you happen to know who Zizek is because of all the memes and bestow him special treatment when he wrote such a lazy copy/pasted article

>genuine good person
>an obnoxious, condescending prick calling people he doesn't like "white niggers" and "kikes"

sargon being a meme aside, nothing you said sounds wrong if you aren't a bourgeois pig

>i'm sure you read the whole bibliography from Rob Merrick every time you encounter an article

i don't know who that is but if i read an article by him that i couldn't understand i would have made a decision to either educate myself or live with not understanding the article. what i wouldn't do is make childish demands that everyone needs to downgrade their writing to meet my level of education. it's really just about how you react when you face even a minimal amount of challenge, and you, being a baby, react by crying.