Will he be remembered as the definitive philosopher of the 21st century?

Will he be remembered as the definitive philosopher of the 21st century?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.org/stream/FreedomainRadio-FreeBooks4/Worlds Apart - Senseless Ethics _ Rational Dictatorship - MASTERS THESIS For Professor Dent By Stefan Molyneux Summer 1994-99#page/n49/mode/2up
fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-2/
youtube.com/watch?v=gVtHvItwjHs
finance.yahoo.com/news/people-boycotting-starbucks-ceo-announces-153452243.html?.tsrc=fauxdal
reddit.com/r/The_Donald/
youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I am certain that he will, along with this guy.

We're not even 20 years into the 21st century, cuck

oh, i don't know, why don't you petition Hiroyuki for a philosophy board so you can stop silting up Veeky Forums with your puerile freshman musings? fucking philosophags. GTFO and take Zizek with you. he smells like rancid goat cheese.

he will be remembered as a prime example of how social media helped destroy traditional academic activity and empowered moronic sophists over proper scholars

>hurrr durrrrr he's a sophist!
>hurrrrrrr durrr he's not a real scholar!

Got some news for you, kiddo

>sperging alt-cuck
>remembered by anyone except his tiny subscriber base of 14 year olds

He would be, but he wronged the anti white pc establishment so he's an unperson now

Whenever he runs into proper philosophy he exposes himself as a charlatan.

The funniest example recently was his video on Aristotle. He spends half the video reciting Wikipedia-level factoids about Aristotle's life. When he gets to the actual philosophy part, it devolves into Molyneux awkwardly reading bits from Aristotle's texts while clearly failing to understand them and occasionally interjecting with "Oh, I love this kind of stuff!". he ends by offering more videos on the subject if people are interested and, of course, never makes another one, focusing instead on making plenty of videos with people like Mike Cernovich and Vox Day. i suppose it is a sensible business decision for his channel, given his audience, but it says a lot about Molyneux's philosophical interests (or lack thereof) that he prioritizes PUA ebook hucksters over Aristotle.

even a goon like icycalm manages to talk about philosophy (in between ranting about video games, PUAS and other pop culture ephemera) more often than Molyneux does

I remember reading that his book on ethics to end all books on ethics doesn't contain a single foot/endnote to another philosopher (or anyone for that matter). Not sure if it's true though.

i assume you mean 'Universally Preferable Behaviour'. it doesn't have a biblography. the index does list two references to Aristotle, two to Socrates, three to Plato and two to Ayn Rand.

the book is also a confused mess, which has been well demonstrated plenty of times

low quality bait

It's probably easy and fun to beat up Stefan Molyneux.

I don't watch or listen to his "serious" material but I do listen to his call-in shows when I'm doing homework or playing videogames as background noise and he gives good advice.

But everytime I hear him talk about the "Non-Agression Principle" I cringe

>helped destroy traditional academic activity

but this is good though

>Does it really need to be an argument?
Really makes you think.

Why isnt pop culture included in philosophy?

Who cares what old white men thought?

>read his master thesis
>tfw finally realize that he's as retarded as it gets

>"Politics is derived from ethics, ethics from epistemology and epistemology from metaphysics. Thus opposing metaphysics will always create opposing politics."
>tfw people still pretends that he understand what logical reasoning is

archive.org/stream/FreedomainRadio-FreeBooks4/Worlds Apart - Senseless Ethics _ Rational Dictatorship - MASTERS THESIS For Professor Dent By Stefan Molyneux Summer 1994-99#page/n49/mode/2up

Here it is, for the interested. It's a cringefest.

archive.org/stream/FreedomainRadio-FreeBooks4/Worlds Apart - Senseless Ethics _ Rational Dictatorship - MASTERS THESIS For Professor Dent By Stefan Molyneux Summer 1994-99#page/n49/mode/2up

>Politics is derived from ethics, ethics from epistemology and epistemology from metaphysics.

Why is he wrong?

First of all he doesn't explain how politics is derived from ethics (he literally just say that, there is no justification for his argument), secondly he is willingly ignoring the actual practices under wich politics operate.

To say that politics is derived from ethics is factually wrong, at best there are certain istances in wich politics interact with that realm, but we both know that that is not the norm.

Also you're forgetting what he's trying to do with that paper: he's trying to analyze Western thought as a whole, wich is a monumental task, but yet he's not willing to justify any of his premises.

tl;dr: it's trash philosophy

you should call in and tell him.

not the same guy, but his conclusion ("Thus opposing metaphysics will always create opposing politics.") is demonstrably false given that there are, in fact, plenty of people with the different metaphysics (say, naturalistic materialism vs substance dualism) but with the same political views (say, democratic liberalism). for example, it implies that atheists and theists cannot have the same political positions, but this is refuted by empirical evidence; plenty of them do

if he's anything, molyneux is a great example of how the plague of ideology can infect even relatively smart people. to be correct, it is not enough to merely to think quickly, to be able to store a large amount information; one must also be able to remain emotionally detached from the subject of their study, or at least aware of the instances when their emotional attachments are beginning to influence their decision making.

not user but perhaps while they have similar politics and different metaphysics, maybe there reasoning for the politics is different?

Honestly I already know he's 100% intellectually dishonest, and that there is no point in trying to argue with him. None of his ideas are either interesting, original or particularly solid, and at this point I know he's just in for the money.

It would be like asking me to debate with AteneWins only because I disagree on what he's saying. I mean, yeah there is some nobility in honest debating, but sometimes it's just not worth it.

Here's another gem:

1) Philosophy requires values
2) Values cannot exist without life
3) Therefore the highest value of philosophy must be the existence of life.
1) The highest value of philosophy is life
2)Life cannot exist without the body
3)Thus physical health is the highest value of life.
1)Physical health is the highest value of philosophy
2)Physical health requires the consistent identification of external physical substance
3)Therefore the highest value of philosophy is the consistent identification of external physical substance.

This is how he ''solves'' philosophy. Literally ''random guy on r/atheism'' tier.

calling in to molyneux with criticisms is unproductive because he gets extremely defensive when people disagree with him and typically tries to change the topic of conversation to the psychological condition of his opponents. it's a dishonest yet simple trick to avoid having to answer objections and to discredit his opponents by implying that they suffer from psychological problems, but he does it reliably

>maybe there reasoning for the politics is different?

yeah, maybe. lots of things are possible. but that's not the conclusion of his argument. first, his conclusion is that different metaphysics implies different politics. it says nothing about their reasons. second, it says 'WILL ALWAYS' not maybe, sometimes.

this might seem pedantic but these details matter in philosophy. molyneux's supposedly serious works in philosophy are full of these careless, flippant arguments and that's why he isn't taken seriously in the field

of course le bald mediocre prescriptive ethicist man find think that prescriptive ethics are what philosophy is about
god, I hate him

>1)Physical health is the highest value of philosophy

funny how he is a balding short man with obvious mental problems

1) Philosophy requires values
2) Values cannot exist without life
3) Therefore the highest value of philosophy must be the existence of life.
1) The highest value of philosophy is life
2)Life cannot exist without death
3)Thus death is the highest value of life.
1)Death is the highest value of philosophy
2)Death requires the cessation of life
3)Therefore the highest value of philosophy is the cessation of life.

freedomain radio death cult when?

This so perfectly summarizes Molyneux. His 'The truth about...' series is top notch. As a philosopher he is really lousy.

> but it says a lot about Molyneux's philosophical interests (or lack thereof) that he prioritizes PUA ebook hucksters over Aristotle.
Well said.

I also hate it that he never make an effort to bring reputable Christians onto his show. Like philosophers, scientists and scholars. He'll bring the best of the people from the side he agrees on but he'll bring whackjobs on anything else (particularly religion).

He put it together so he could at least say he's tried to ground his morality.

Yep

He wouldn't have him on. He's select about who he debates

Kek

>finally Veeky Forums has seen Molyneux for the charlatan he is

Nice. Now it's time to collectively realize that Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are hacks too.

>all the butthurt sjws itt triggered by based Stefan
NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT

>anyone doesnt like me? BUTTHU_RT

-Truly, the next stage of human reasoning

Jordan Peterson is by far the biggest fag around. Courageous guy. Sam Harris is a hack and the philosophically inept will fawn over him.

>Molyneux
>philosopher
heh

go cry about Trump winning some more FAGGOT

Sam Harris is just a meme on Veeky Forums, no one takes him seriously.

Peterson is temporarily popular because he appeals to the tribal loyalties of people like this , but he isn't taken that seriously either

lmao

he would laugh during

>Sam Harris is just a meme on Veeky Forums, no one takes him seriously.

You're in for a big surprise. Check his subreddit. It's as cultish as Molyneux's fanbase (but that's what you get when you're a pseudo-philopher costantly discovering ''the truth'').

>but he isn't taken that seriously either
By the accademia, sure. By Veeky Forums? No way.
We've just seen a week of unironic threads completely focused on the Harris v Peterson debate.

>climate science denier
>cultist
>anarcho-kekpitalist
>relevant

Lmao. And yes, that's an argument.

I am new on Veeky Forums but I rarely miss Stef's vids. Unless he rants about liberals and repeats himself for a 100th time.

He is fun to listen to

This guy is amazing and my role model, and Im middle aged.

You don't have to exclusively restrict yourself to opinions that can be spoken aloud in your communist reading circle, you know. Treat yourself to a sneaky doubt now and then. Like, maybe the tendency of history is ~not~ inevitably to global communism?

I like cock.

>Like, maybe the tendency of history is ~not~ inevitably to global communism?
Pure ideology desu.

But that picture just makes him sound retarded.

He's a wonderful meme man and I'm glad to have him around.

He gets massively triggered when anyone brings up determinism though.

The Harris v. Peterson debate threads were made mostly by right wingers who somehow think a guy who made to his mid 60s while passing completely under the radar was somehow the new god king of philosophy because he triggered some SJWs, no one actually RESPECTS neither man, everyone is just memeing both.

lol no

He's probably the biggest pseud on the internet

Is that the guy who tried to build an ancap utopia based on the non aggression principle and nothing else?

Nah.

He's right about some things, but Marriage and Christianity aren't about so save Europe from anything.

Especially not being a cucked to death faggot.

I mean, that's what both marriage and Christianity are all about.

Provide for useless wifey the baby maker and turn the other cheek.

...

Who was that philosophy student that totally beat the shit out of him?

has anyone actually read his stuff? i've heard mixed reviews about Universal Preferable Behavior

Link?

It's out there, somewhere. If you google the name of this student it'll come up - I just can't remember their name.

fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-2/

At least he slams liberalism. Particularly American liberalism. God I hate liberals so MUCH

wow, this was extremely painful to read. No surprises here though, I find it consistent with the rest of his behaviour. Sure, you can cherry pick things and follow him for reasonable stances like his opposition to the regressive left and image politics, but in essence he is a sophist and not a very good one either. I'm sure he believes most of his tenets which makes his lectures even more cringeworthy.

What's everyone's beef with Sam? Sure, he attracted a very annoying audience of edgy sophomoric teens who paint his contribution in a much too flattering light, but I find his discourse perfectly respectable.

Why do people keep calling this dude a cultist?
>Hurr durr just google it
No thanks I can't read

Who are good modern philosophers then?
That is, who is easy to read/listen/watch. It's such a drag to digest academic philosophical papers.

You don't want philosophy, you want "pop philosophy."

youtube.com/watch?v=gVtHvItwjHs

I want philosophers who can express themselves clear enough

You are going to run into a little conundrum here since you want someone who a)presents his ideas in a language accessible to 5th graders and b)manages to say something beyond trite platitudes. Maybe you're just not equipped to be reading philosophy?

Lol at this image

Clarity of presentation of thought does not necessarily mean superfluous logic nigga.
I bet you read the shittiest most convoluted prose just to caress your ego.

>I bet you read the shittiest most convoluted prose just to caress your ego.

No but when I don't understand something I put in the work and look up definitions and phrases, and so on instead of just giving up and looking for a dumbed down version of the same book that won't be nearly as fulfilling, educational, or satisfying.

(RANT) You can try to put a face on the cover of a book, and then tell everybody about it.

In all honesty, he's interestng.

He spends his life Immersing himself into every single nook and Cranny of the Conservative culture and he simply tells us about it.

I follow the Libaral cucks with a Passion and for example just now: finance.yahoo.com/news/people-boycotting-starbucks-ceo-announces-153452243.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

Not a single inside Channel, from FOX to R_Donald has a mention of Starbucks.

The demacrats have no real news, while You can go to
reddit.com/r/The_Donald/ and get a good dose of Propaganda and then to Breitbart.com for a control shot. CNN is what You have on the other hand.

...

Ranting on Veeky Forums? user, you need to leave and never come back.

I do think you both can find a middle ground.
Obscurantism is a problem in philosophy. It's hard to put complex thoughts in simple sentences.
That doesn't mean it is impossible though.

I also do think that there were and are many philosophers who abuse vagueness so it's harder to critizise their thoughts.

>but I find his discourse perfectly respectable.
he isn't intellectually rigorous. he can't understand Hume. read his exchange with chomsky to see him get btfo by a real academic.

I always wonder why of all people to attack, people pick him.

I wonder if he makes people notice how they are evil, their parents abused them and continue to, and their whole life is a worthless void designed around doing things they hate and making life worse for others.

Why else would the ad homs flow endlessly to potentially the most peaceful effort on the planet?

>I wonder if he makes people notice how they are evil, their parents abused them and continue to, and their whole life is a worthless void designed around doing things they hate and making life worse for others.

This sounds like something a cult member would say and I'm not even joking. I read about Scientology a lot and whenever anyone criticizes them they'll often respond with "yeah well what are your crimes?" This is because they get convinced that Scientology is a force for good, and anyone who would criticize 'good' must be bad, they must have something wrong with them, they MUST have crimes that they're hiding. You see people criticizing Stefan Molyneux and your immediate reaction is that something must be wrong with the people doing the criticizing, because they're could possibly be anything wrong with 'goodness' itself. Their parents clearly must have abused them for them to want to attack Stefan, he just wants to help people!

What if they voted for Trump though?

Not an argument

He stopped trying to be a great philosopher years ago, he's more of a philosophically styled entertainer/junk reporter.

I wonder when was the last time he read a book?

Literally insane

>one must also be able to remain emotionally detached from the subject of their study, or at least aware of the instances when their emotional attachments are beginning to influence their decision making.

Ie. The mozzies are comin to get my daughter! Help me Trump!

>Politics is derived from ethics,
Materialists would fucking fall off their chair laughing

They would hurt themselves.

Have you tried being curious?

I'm having a hard time understanding you, and I don't think you understood what I said. Attack =/= criticize.

I'm curious why the majority of the world wants me killed for advocating non-violence.

You associating me with a cult makes me think you're the person I'm describing.

Why not ask me what I'm thinking/feeling etc?

Were your parents ever genuinely curious about what you thought/felt?

>I'm curious why the majority of the world wants me killed for advocating non-violence.
And here's the full-blown delusion and persecution complex.
Seriously, get help dude.

>I'm curious why the majority of the world wants me killed
Dude, what

Anytime you break a law, you are threatened by death.

If you choose to not pay taxes, you will be threatened by death.

If you advocate a state, you want me killed because we disagree.

Am I missing something here?

>Anytime you break a law, you are threatened by death.
>If you choose to not pay taxes, you will be threatened by death.
Are you trying to make libertarians look like retards? What is this shit?

Everyone on here hates him because he doesn't bow down to the alter of multiculturalism.

Are you going to show me where I made an error or be a little bitch?

At least have the decency to call me a faggot.

Posting original comic, fucking JIDF shill!!! You may have fooled us other times, but not this time, you fucking kike!!! 420 RACE WAR

>le death penalty every time you break a law XD

He is retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=LiZlBspV2-M

Dude, wtf, you cryptokike.

The only time you are threatened by death is if you actively resist apprehension after breaking a law or do an especially outrageous murder (in some states). If you don't want to follow the law, then you have the choice to change it through the democratic process or leave the boundaries of the state.

>politics: that part of ethics which has to do with the regulation and government of a nation or state
plebs

values can also not exist without reason. therfore reason is the highest value of philosophy, boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

>helped destroy traditional academic activity and empowered moronic sophists over proper scholars

Academia did that by itself.