Why does nobody take him seriously as a philosopher?

plebs don't take him seriously
also not an arguement

Because he has never said or written anything that indicates he has a deep knowledge of any subject. In fact, he has often demonstrated the opposite.

Because he doesn't deserve to be taken seriously

For better or worse, everything called philosophy is not easy to read. He makes straighforward videos, for better or worse, and so it's just labeled opnions.

His videos are largely more empirical than any other popular YouTube channel, they are also easily digestible.

Molymeme isn't a philosopher. He needs to stop using this term. I think he really fancies himself one, but he's really nothing more than a pop culutural/political commentator. He's a cut above most others out there, but that's not saying much.

He has written books supposedly about philosophy but I haven't read them so I can't speak to their value as philosophical texts.

Yeah, what I'm saying is that people who "like philosophy" and use that word, like rather complicated text. At least "complicated" for normal people. Ideas and ways of looking at things with a twist.
Stefan just states his opinions and that with a strong agenda. No hard to understand sentences. So nobody would call it philosophy today.

On another note, if you go back on his channel to 2012, there are videos of him shilling bitcoin and he has at least a 600 or so BTC incomping on his donation page since then. Not sure what he hodled or sold, but that's millions.

Sophistry is cool, this guy is a lot more like an autistic, humorless pederast (philosopher)

ONE DOLLAR

I'm ashamed to be an alumnus of the same university as him (McGill)

Have you tried just looking at him?

ahahahahahahahaha

inconsistent and doesn’t understand philosophy, has failed to produce any remarkable works

are you saying "why frozen is feminazi propaganda" isn't a remarkable work?

It’s depressing to me that anybody would take him seriously as a philosopher. It’s depressing that anybody would be even bother to make a post like this, however ‘ironic’ it’s meant to be. It dilutes any actual discourse that takes place here.

He’s not a philosopher. He’s a political commentator, and a lousy one. And the fact that he fancies himself to be ‘a thinker’ is just a cover for his massive ignorance.

i don't take anyone seriously

>He’s a political commentator, and a lousy one.
Lol, give an example of a "good" political commentator. Besides, his best stuff is non-political.

Because he isn't a philosopher

Is this varg or JP? I don't follow tumblr podcasts

I don't know, maybe because hes not one?

I know this little to no bearing on the content of whatever his position on things is, but is anyone else just viscerally repulsed by him? Something about the way he comports himself; the mannerisms, cadence and his eyes all sets off a bunch of primal alarm bells in my reptile brain. Even if I agreed 100% with everything he said I would not want to be around him.

This. I actually liked him before I got really into philosophy. Whenever he tries to talk about philosophy it's just really fucking embarrassing. He doesn't really have an in-depth grasp of any philosophers or philosophical concepts.
He likes Aristotle but hasn't taken the time to try to understand Plato and just flat out dismisses him as a mystic, it just sounds like he watched a bunch of videos of Ayn Rand talking about philosophy.

Have you seen his eyes? The look in his eyes looks really fucked up to me. Kind of like sociopathic maybe

I watch Molymeme fairly regularly, starting maybe a year ago. I think he's an interesting interviewer and I enjoy some of his response videos to people Skyping in with him (a lot of them have a kind of right-wing "Loveline" feel to them, if anyone used to listen to good old Dr. Drew and Adam Carolla).

I'm not sure about the details, but I know he was raised by a single mother who was abusive. Has obviously left some scars and character motivation somewhere. He's also a former (read: failed) playwright and his monologues are sometimes unbearably grandiose sounding because of it. That's why I tend to stick to his interviews and call-ins.

He's not a genius or a visionary, but I see him as ideologically consistent and coherent enough to listen to his view point, to contrast with other personalities.

Molyneux nuffin about philosophy

Yeah definitely. There's something uncanny about him. just watching him on camera is like watching the devil talking.

>but I see him as ideologically consistent and coherent enough to listen to his view point,
Consistent? After he is trying to capture the MAGA crowd?

He's the most important philosopher of our time.
Fall in line or get out of the god damn way.

He looks like The Judge

again, he is theater kid playing a philosopher in youtube, he studied theater in college and that's what he does and he is good at it

>Something about the way he comports himself
he is an actor. he studied theater.

all actors are soulless creatures whose bodies are used to channel the spirit of something greater than them, that's were the weirdness comes from

>again he is an MI6 asset playing a theater kid playing a philosopher on YT and that’s what he does and he is good at it

can i get a quick rundown

would be kind of cool if molymeme was a secret agent, i'd watch the movie

I don't really watch him, but I hated the way he sighed condescendingly after every line he read from Zizek's article about Peterson despite missing the point every time and constantly attributing things to Zizek that he never said or even opposes. Granted, Zizek's article really was phoned in and Zizek's second article somewhat fixes it (although it's still too short, despite Zizek's talent for copy-pasting his stuff over and over), but it's still embarrassing when someone acts with an air of superiority and indignation despite being blatantly wrong.

i mean that's kind of the charm of Molymeme, he sees things from a very simplistic point of view, but many of the people he criticizes fail to defend their position even when challenged by very basic, brainlet-tier counter-arguments

probably because theyve watched him.

>that time he browbeat some autistic swedish faggot into admitting his mom didn't love him because she worked while he was a child

>>that time he browbeat some autistic swedish faggot into admitting his mom didn't love him because she worked while he was a child
wtf, is he some sort of youtube Hannibal Lecter?

He's just fucking mental m8, people call in asking for advice and he shits on them. He thinks that people who were spanked as kids are bran damaged.

Because he isn't. I don't think you even need a philosophy degree to be a philosopher and so I'm not disparaging him on the fact that he lacks a degree in philosophy. But he doesn't produce content relating to philosophy and when he tries to wax philosophical he fails, and fails badly. He preaches reason and evidence but can hardly reason himself out of a paper bag.

Universally preferable ethics is a book he wrote that got exposed as a mess by David Gordon, an atheist anarcho-capitalist (like Molyneux), and Molyneux tried to respond but his responses showed he lacked understanding of the issues at play.

Likewise his book the Art of the Argument has received bad reviews from philosophy professors and people trained in logic. He gave wrong definitions and terrible examples.

He tries to be a philosopher but he isn't. Read the David Gordon critique of his book. Gordon speaks on Molyneux's character. He has a superficial intelligence and to stupid Americans anything resembling a British accent is associated with intelligence and sophistication.

Dr Gordon on Molyneux.

> Despite the impression I have so far given, Molyneux is by no means stupid: quite the contrary. Therein, I suggest, lies the source of the problems of his book. Because of his facile intelligence, he thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed. Unfortunately for him and his book, he is mistaken.

I disagree with the man on a lot but he's right about the Swede. A woman who pursues a career over her own children is a shitty person. Also, the user who bought up sounds like a whiney faggot who intentionally dropped a lot of context.

I didn't drop any context, feel free to link it for everyone to hear for themselves if you think it makes molymeme sound good.

>our
yes, (((our)))

I don't agree with Molyneux on much. He's never quite shaken his Randian/AnCap roots, and that cripples him. He's shackled by his ideology, so he isn't acting as a philosopher so much as a social critic and polemicist.

However, there's something endearingly DIY about Molyneux. The credentialed academic establishment hate him, and they'll gladly hand-wave him away, label him a vulgarian, and go on navel-gazing in their ivory towers. But Molyneux, clumsy as he is, at least addresses the most controversial issues of the day in a relevant way. Cloistered academics feel this is beneath them.

If anything, I hope Molyneux encourages his critics to enter the realm of free, open internet dialogue. The modern academy has made many intellectuals soft. They grow fat and lazy from tenure, and they ought to engage in the bloody Internet Thunderdome and meet Gen-Y and Gen-Z where they are.

I hope to see more intellectuals operating independently on internet platforms in the future. It's a better place to be than perched in a sinecure gobbling up the bloated, debt-funded salary of a tenured academic.

i'm kind of hyped that Mark Blyth seems eager to engage with the internet this year, the only leftist economist that doesn't seem to be just a meme

he still seems to hold many liberal bubble views, but he can see through other, so hopefully something interesting will come out of his engagement with the internet

To be fair, what "made America great" was free market and an overall free society. He's consistent as long as he strays those people away from Trump's protectionism and into core values of the Founding Fathers. He isn't trying to capture the authoritarian left crowd.

it's because he's a sociopath. the guy is a cult leader in the making and you can tell, even through a screen, immediately that something is off about the fucker if you have properly developed instincts, most of his audience has autism or a very dissociated grasp on reality and cant tell

wasn't that type of thing created by Richard Dawkins with his whole "pay hundreds of dollars to meet this guy in this super-secret rational meetup"

Why does he lie about his jewish heritage when he used to freely admit it?

>The credentialed academic establishment hate him
most of them probably don't even know who he is, there isn't some anti-molyneux attack force in academia senpai

there's a difference between charging for a private dinner and asking people to cut themselves off from family and friends

well, on some parts it seems like academia is starting to crawl out of their caves and realizing that doing conferences for 20 people is not enough for their meme ideas and they should start engaging with the internet

which i'm sure it will turn horribly wrong and i'll be happy to see how it burns and crashes

*the only leftist economist that doesn't seem to be just a meme if your only source of economic thought is Youtube videos, Twitter and Laotian fingerpuppet imageboards.

i mean public intellectual sort of figure, i'm sure there are good books by lefties, there's no need to be upset

That's what you meant? It would have been helpful to actually say it then pal, wouldn't it?

He has to align with his new audience somehow.

re-evaluate the life choices that have led you to ask this question

>Experts who spend their whole life studying and contributing to a field don't like this person or take them seriously, so clearly they're changing the game and everyone qualified is in denial
When will this meme end?
>Bloated comfortable academic salaries
Have you ever heard of publish or perish? Ffs I'm an entry level code monkey and I make more than the average US professor

If any academics him it’s only grad students that have to teach or TA first year philosophy and have to deal with 18 year old boys who think they are geniuses that have the whole world figured out and won’t engage in the seminars on Plato, Rousseau or Kant because all they want to talk about is that guy and Jordan Peterson. Good luck trying to get them to read any Mary Wollstonecraft, and they will probably try to pull a stunt if you present them with something like a chapter from Cornel West. Do that and they might make a presentation about the genetic inferiority of the blacks or the mental weakness of women and continue to miss the entire point of the class.

Academics don’t have the time to engage Internet cranks, no matter how popular they are. You have no idea what it’s like to be at a university. A philosophy professor literally does not care what teenagers think or what YouTube sophists talk about, they are thinking about their classes, the next conferences, what they are going to publish next and so on.