Greece had Socrates

America had Emerson.

I remember when people used to take him seriously. I think all his credibility went out the window when he betrayed his own values and became an alt-right Trump supporter

Some of them still watch him. I dropped off in 2013.

>le bald Ancap mommy issues meme man

It's pretty cringe. He's used Pepe in his video thumbnails, says take the red pill and "cuck" unironically...

He was always a weird MRA pickup artist type but now he's trying to latch onto the NRx

>ever taking Molyneux seriously

>literally a mommy issues cult leader who tells people to break away from their families because he had an unhappy upbringing

Why does every ancap become fascist over time?

>Greece had Socrates
>Germany had Kant
>Canada has Stefan Molyneux
>America has Mike Cernovich
Truly we are blessed.

same reason commies do

Except Marxists don't advocate that you idiot

Nobody cares about that faggot.

Chomsky is the actual great "american philosopher" of our time. Even if you don't agree with his views on language or politics that's pretty much a fact.

It's the result of ancap economics. Say what you will about the government, but it's monetary policy the economy would have went under long ago. Anarchocapitalism does not allow you to fight a recession. Monetary policy does not fix the problem, however, but it delays the consequences. Then any asshole who can rally a crowd is Dur Furhrer. Libertarianism was always the road to fascism.

>Marxists don't advocate proletarian control of the means of production
Only on Veeky Forums

This man is very knowledgeable. Too bad he is a fraud.

>who tells people to break away from their families because he had an unhappy upbringing

Do try to keep up

What is, America's founding fathers?

I don't mean to defend Chomsky (I also have reservations about his views on both politics and language) but, why do you say he's a fraud?

What did he say he takes all that Defoo shit back or something?

It is a well known fact he is a an academic gatekeeper, defending things like the official story of 9/11, CIA operations, foreign intelligence meddling, etc. His career (as well as Zinms) was made singing praises for Ellsburgs pentagon papers, which were a CIA limited hangout, and which were not anything new for anyone who read Le Monde. If you listen to his talks, he always focuses criticism on US foreign policy, with the US being a monolithic imperial force. He doesn't name names. He doesn't propose action. He plays into the leftist impulse to criticize the US and others when in reality the answer is not that simple. He deters away from real issues and real culprits. I used to be a fan of his. This is not coming from some anarchoshit or redpilled faggot.

Don't even compare Kant to Socrates. Kant is a fucking hack.

this is literally what happens when you only pay attention to continentals and political philosophy. America has a wonderful philosophical tradition, from Quine to Lewis to Gettier to Kripke. And somehow they were all analytics. What could it mean?

>What could it mean?

That analytics will always be irrelevant

Shut the fuck up dumbass
American philosophy is $$$$$$

The US has lots of "good" analytic philosophers (Quine, Putnam, Nozick, Rawls, etc.) not to mention the so-called American pragmatists (Peirce, Dewey, James). Not on the level of Germany, France, or Greece, but certainly a solid contribution.

Also Berkeley was basically American.

>Op refers to cultures and countries
>Two continents is either of those

>Stefan Basil Molyneux is an Irish-born Canadian blogger. Molyneux writes on topics including anarcho-capitalism, atheism...

i hope this is a bait thread

America had plenty of great people, like Quine and Charles Peirce.

Analytics and pragmatics are both awful schools of philosophy.

>i hope this is a bait thread

There literally isn't any other kind of thread anymore.

Analytics is a reiteration of the Platonic tradition. It's irrelevant like all Platonic rationalism.

It's silly to just write off analytic OR continental philosophy. There are good analytic philosophers and good continental philosophers (as well as bad philosophers in both schools), and really the distinction isn't as clear-cut as people make it out to be. Personally, I'm much more inclined toward continental philosophy, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate someone like Quine or Goodman or Rawls.

Have you actually read any analytic philosophy? Its anything but Platonic.

>it's anything but Platonic
All rationalisms are Platonic. Are you denying analytics is a rationalism? It certainty isn't a naturalism.

>le Plato Aristotle dichotomy

Read more

Learn what a joke is, you butthurt Marxist

He's not American, he's a Canadian from Ireland.

>I was only joking to be retarded :^)

I bet you haven't read a single page of analytic philosophy

Stephen Molyneux is Canadian. America has Superman.

Some con artist who made a cult for virgin men in their twenties. He tried writing books, but his followers are too dumb to read, so now he does short little Youtube videos instead. They are mostly just masturbatory pseudo-philosophy about how his cult is actually so much better than those who aren't in the cult, also mixed in is him constantly asking his viewers for money.

That says more about the worth of analytic philosophy today than him

Emerson was probably the most influential American intellectual in the humanities. It's hard to call him a 'philosopher' in a technical sense but his works covered areas pertinent to both religion and philosophy.

He's one of those people who's influence you can really see everywhere though. Pretty much all of the major literary figures in 19th century America either loved him or were just being tsundere. He was also a significant influence on Neechee.

Agree with everything you said but

>short little Youtube videos instead.
>short

What exactly does that say about it?

>What exactly

Depends, define exactly

this is 10/10 antibait

Stefan is a treasure

>short videos
>short

Moly's videos are all stupid long because he's long winded and loves hearing himself talk. He literally has a 4 hour (4!) video about MAGA. Not even joking. Check.

I thought his review of the new Doom game was alright.

That's a reading of a short book by Mike Cernovich.

In his defense, the video you're talking about is actually just a complete reading of Mike Cernovich's shitty self-help book.

You all know these aren't arguments, right?

Stefan has done an interview with Chomsky. It wasn't particularly good. Chomsky is getting up there in years.

From what i have seen on Stephan videos he doesn't seem to have a clear stance when it comes to analyzing society. He uses some anthropological tools and approaches that are all over the place.
Perhaps it's just me not seeing what's behind all of his seemingly alt-right diatribes, but I just can't see any clear system of principles behind his analysis. Would you care to point out any essays or other works he has done explaining this?

He basically adheres to a system of ethics that owes a lot to Kant and argumentation ethics. He has a free book on his views w/r/t ethics.

In general he follows an empirical approach guided by his personal interests.

His analysis of society is filtered through those two primary lenses.

>clear system of principles

Well he used to be a pretty standard libertarian, but he's mutated into more of an alt-righty in the last couple years, particularly after the onset of the migrant crisis.

He's clearly not an unintelligent person, but he thinks he's smarter than he is and uses his soft British accent and rhetorical flourishes to get people to believe anything he says. He's also clearly quite emotional even though he tries to play the analytic "philosopher".

He holds pretty creepily resentful views of women--particularly single mothers, obviously influenced by his own experience with a single mother. He's a men's rights fedora.

He thinks taxation is slavery but stops just short of defending literal chattel slavery in the South. Also a colonialism apologist.

Why are we even talking about Moly, Jesus, he's a nobody.

Single mothers simply are egoistic trash thanks to welfare and colonialism wasn't purely bad. Just you look to fucking India where they burned widows alive when their husband died till the british made it illegal. Every part of the empire profited in the end from beeing ruled by it, although you have to break an egg to make an omelette.

Moly has his flaws but at least he tries to better himself as seen on many occasions.

None of this is an argument.

What has he said that was wrong? Can you source it? Or will you adjective him to death?

Start arguing any time

Reminder.

Jordan B. Peterson needs to be added to this btw

> Hitchens
> pseudo-intellectual

kys

Says a lot that that's the one you picked out.

> ITP people I disagree with are pseuds

While I agree with this, I do think that not everybody on that list it's in the same category when it comes to how aware they are that they're only doing pseud rhetoric.
I'm pretty sure Zizek and Chosmky fall under the category of being self-aware. Specially if you consider that their written work is quite interesting and tackles what's beyond of what you can see in their videos.

> the one

That's not the point. If you disagreed completely with all of them then there wouldn't be many opinions left to have.

>Zizek
>Chomsky
>Varoufakis

Bullshit chart. Anyone with a bloody PhD doesn't belong there

Wrong. A PhD can still opine on crap they don't actually know anything about.

So please explain to me why somebody should ignore them simply because they, like every human, also talk shit.

eg Thunderf00t and Dawkins: Great in the sciency thing and debullshiting but terrible on the subject of economy and politics. Doesn't make their other points irrelevant.

Also implying that anybody would think of Sarkeesian or Lasi as an intellectual.

I'll concede to most of these, but Yuri? Isn't he just talking about what he learnt while working for the soviets? Also why Anthony Fantano and Scaruffi? They review music, it's gonna be pretty subjective.
And Dusty isn't even a rhetorician, he just swears/yells his opinions

Alright fine a PhD in a subject they don't speak about.
Except Sam Harris who was given a PhD for meme research in a subject he had no prior education in

Yeah, Thunderf00t was totally wrong about Brexit.

Only music experts should review music.

What qualifies one as a "music expert"?

A degree in music.

DONT WAY A TON, DONT NEED A GUN TO GET RESPECT UP ON THE STREET

m.youtube.com/watch?v=FekLGGOZBuY

>Stefan Molyneux
>Good philosopher

What sort of music degree? You realize its probably one of the least uniform subjects in the humanities

I don't think anybody dumb enough to get a degree in music has a valuable opinion on anything

Under rated

Music is so diverse it'd be hard to classify a single man as an expert. The thought that "you don't need to be a chef to know a dish is shit" makes it even harder. John Doe could denounce an entire genre of music for no reason, but so could John the Jazz man. John Doe has no 'real' musical background while John Jazz has been studying, playing, and composing jazz for 3 decades straight. They could both come to the consensus: rock music is trash. John Doe says some arbitrary reason, John Jazz says it's trash because he (i.e.) only cares about jazz. Neither opinion matters. John Jazz COULD compose rock music, he could play it, he could study it (as could John Doe). Now both are "rock experts" because they "know it all." They still declare it's shit, because it's subjective. I could understand watching John Jazz to get a crash course on what's happening in the song. "Double time swing, not quite my tempo." Great, now you have more knowledge of the music you enjoy. But wait! "This track really takes a turn for the worse in the second half, turns into fusion, fuck that shit."

Music review is a pointless exercise; consuming music reviews is silly. You can listen to the music and conclude why you do or do not enjoy it. I could understand a layman wanting an "expert" opinion on why a song is or is not "good" but the mainstream reviewers are not more qualified than your own ear. You can say "the beat is catchy" the reviewer can say "very repetitive 4/4 drumming on this track, nothing new, throw it away." or if he likes it "very effective drumming on this track, really intertwines the melody and harmony." Who cares? If you want to understand music, just look into it, deconstruct songs and find patterns, better yet, make it.

>Lewis

Wow, /leftypol/ is retarded

Because we realize anarcho capitalism is only accepted by high IQ whites.

Subhumans cling to the state, so... they gotta go

>pickup artist
what

youtube.com/watch?v=osxsLchyGZk

Tbh that's not far from it, the whole abolition of family and all.

Of course, that does not apply to based Uncle Joe.

>34:44
Nope.

top kek, you truely are a pleb

This is a stupid point. You could literally say all of this same shit about literature or any of the arts. Music criticism and analysis still has tons of value.

Music criticism and analysis CAN have tons of value. The fact of the matter is, most reviewers are buffoons regurgitating rhetoric.

I know. That's why you read academic journals and not stupid websites