ART OF THE ARGUMENT

Has anybody studied this philosophical masterpiece yet?

I'm waiting my copy to arrive in the mail. I expect it to teach me to become better at dialectics.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=hRMgH9p-1So
www92.zippyshare.com/v/CRrZeBWE/file.html
youtube.com/watch?v=SUwA8QOH9Kw
amazon.com/dp/B0756QYZ26/?tag=freedradio-20
fdrliberated.com/brief-introduction-freedomain-radio/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I know you are being ironic, but it is actually a great book

...

Literally nothing bad with that

jesus that cover is the equivalent of throwing a bunch of buzzwords together

I remember a few years ago Moly claimed to have logically "proved" Liberatianism is the only moral framework.

Is he is going on like that or did he get bored of it?

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=hRMgH9p-1So

Jesus fucking Christ, why this gets published? Why all these /pol/tards and brainlets are allowed to read?
Fucking wanna kill myself everytime garbage like this is published, just like the tards who will buy, read and take seriously the Hillary book (with she probably didnt even wrote it)

Molyneux is one of the greatest living philosophers, what are you talking about? Name a more important philosopher (LIVING)? Žižek? Žižek is just a socialist SJW shill libcuck.

How did you order a copy when the only thing available is the kindle edition?

Wow great detective work there Sherlock. I obviously didn't order. It has to be garbage since it was written by a Youtube celeb retard. Duh.

>Destiny

Not an argument

>anyone that has taken philosophy 101 know more than me
destiny knows that molyneux has a masters degree in philosophy right?

Ironically not an argument is not an argument

"not an argument is not an argument" is also not an argument.

I have a masters degree in philosophy and I can tell you Destiny is right, Molyneux is a retard.

Not an argument is not an argument is also not an argument is not an argument.

Sophist

i dont care what a continental philosopher says because i know that the noises you make with your mouth, and the scratches you put on paper have no meaning at all.

when a rattlesnake shakes its tail, its saying, "back the fuck up nigga, ill bite your shit!" the rattle has the same meaning every single time. your "communication" has no meaning at all. it is so divorced from reality that it is worhtless. in other words, the noises you make are worth less than those of a fucking animal.

think about that.

Some user posted the link to a pdf. Enjoy lads.
www92.zippyshare.com/v/CRrZeBWE/file.html

It's self-published, no?

you

nah he's a literal nazi now

no he isn't

Just a figurative nazi

no he isn't

ya he is

no he isn't

ya he is

no he isn't

but has the argument a surprise when he wakes up lol

ya he is

no he isn't

He has an BA and MA in history, not philosophy.

>destiny knows that molyneux has a masters degree in philosophy right?
sam harris has a BA in philosophy and is retarded about it anyway
the stupidity of a person handily beats education every time

>Some user posted the link to a pdf.
I did it under duress. That bastard user invoked my only weakness, the principle of solidarity.

Alain de Bottom

Checkmate, nazi fuck

> all in the bottom
lol wad a fag

please stop posting this shitty except, its just the fucking preface, its not like that is the whole book

There's already been a thread about this. One was enough.

I feel like Molyneux was trying to communicate something different with those passages, it would be "bad" deductive reasoning in the sense that, despite being valid, it's still not a good argument - he's mainly trying to show how arguments that may seemingly come across as right are pushed all the time,

In other words, he's not trying to just say "this is what a valid argument is; this is what an invalid argument is", he's trying to show common poor arguments you might see in real life. He could have written it more clearly but I don't think it totally destroys the book.

molyneux really exposed himself with this book. he thinks that these two arguments have the same form:

1. All plumbers can swim.
2. Bob knows how to swim.
3. Therefore Bob is a plumber.

and

1. Kind people are socialists.
2. Bob is a kind person.
3. Therefore Bob is a socialist.

it's hard to image a worse mistake in an introductory logic book

>Checkmate, nazi fuck

Not an argument.

This. Molyneux is a fucking retard with a cult following.

have you read his masters thesis? please do, it's hilarious

nah
check

(destiny also is a retard with a cult following)

I think you busted this /pol/tard. Is either Molyneux himself or some fuckwit spamming threads like these and Ayn Rand.

So, I disagree with Molyneux about a lot of shit, and he seems to be an egotistical dumbfuck, but I'm willing to give him more of a chance than I have.

Does anyone have any videos of him laying out his basic ethics, and the arguments behind his ethical views? I see a lot of his stuff where he seems to be operating under some assumptions about what is right and wrong, but I haven't seen anything where he actually starts from nothing (or from axioms, or observations, or anything at all) and tries to actually build his ethical system.

Not willing to spend the money to buy this book, by the way, but if somebody posts it I'll give it a read.

>search eBay
0 results
>search Bookdepository
0 results
>search Abebooks
0 results

Is this even a real book?

i think the book is just to afford him some degree of "prestige"

that and selling a book is more in line with the "protestant work-ethic" than begging for patreon bux

The only thing it takes to acquire a degree is dogged determination. Especially for postgrad. Any idiot can get one, so long as they have the will to squeeze themself through the system.

I think it's just a real book that less than a hundred people have bought.

thanks this makes me less stressed out
just to let you know, you made a person feel less shitty

ya he is

It might be self published on Amazon.

For a self-published Amazon work it sure gets mentioned a lot here on Veeky Forums

>it would be "bad" deductive reasoning in the sense that, despite being valid, it's still not a good argument
But the plumber syllogism isn't a valid argument.
It's affirming the consequent, so even if its premises are true the conclusion doesn't follow.

these are examples of unsound arguments. they are valid, but not true. it's much easier to spot an invalid argument than an untrue one

Scruton

At 2:18, his criticism is retarded. Counter-example is a standard way of proving the invalidity of an argument.

Sure Molyneux is a meme but he is a genius compared to this Destiny the fast talking wannabe twitch intellectual as shown by him not even being aware of the definition of logical validity (which is introduced in the first chapter of most logic books).

Hello is this the autistic cultie thread.

>Destiny
"No."

Who do you think is OP?

The first one is NOT valid nor does it have the same form as the second.

It should read

1. All swimmers are plumbers.
2. Bob knows how to swim.
3. Therefore Bob is a plumber.

Stephan Molyneux is such a powerful philosopher.
This made me really think about myself.
youtube.com/watch?v=SUwA8QOH9Kw
The title is partially click bait.

Someone keeps shilling this and Culture of Critique to make money of retarded Veeky Forumsards.

amazon.com/dp/B0756QYZ26/?tag=freedradio-20

>Is this even a real book?
sure it is, just like pic related

This is truly the darkest timeline.

It's the better timeline. The Hilldog could have won and we would all be in "reeducation" camps.
We still have a chance.

He may have tried, but he did a terrible job. It would have taken one line to say that the conclusion shown by the premises is valid, and shown where the fault in the premises was. Instead he just went "isn't this dumb lmao".

hi stefan
lmao retard
embarrassing
destiny is a cuck but he's right about this hack
this is b8 but literally any philosopher currently employed at an accredited institution is a better and more important philosopher than molyneux
lmao he has history degrees
>this damage control
holy shit give it up
this
holy shit you retard, if molyneux was trying to show the argument was invalid why didn't he address its structure at all?
wrong
kys lmao

Shut the FUCK up

Dude stop spreading lies. I'm not him but Stefan Molyneux is not a nazi. Stop being triggered please.

That's not a refutation.

*dankest timeline

>zizek
>sjw
Have you read any of his books? Yeah, he's a leftist but he says a lot of shit that would trigger any university libtard.
The problem is no one actually reads his works, they just watch him sniff through a few dozen youtube videos and call it a day.

All swimmers are not plumbers though

Why would I waste my time reading any further?

Is it a refutation that it is the number 1 bestseller in political philosophy right now?

This is about reputation by association.

Stop being autistic for one second or go back to /r9k/.

>the logic pedants you argue with on Veeky Forums aren't even familiar with introductory logic

i always hear that thing about the cult of molymeme, but his youtube comments seem to be average right wingers memeing?

where did this cult thing meme came from?

>where did this cult thing meme came from?

start here:

fdrliberated.com/brief-introduction-freedomain-radio/

How about you just read the fucking book instead you media cult members. Boohoo an opinion that scares you so read some conspiracy about it instead. Grow up you children.

Don't bother. He doesn't know anything about philosophy. He idoloizes Socrates and rees about sophist despite being the biggest sophist on the planet, begging for donations and trying to take philosophical ideas and force them into a conclusion he's already made, that the gubbermint is always evil and the NAP is absolute.

Fucking Tai Lopez is probably more educated than him.

i've read plenty of intro logic books already. from what i've read, molyneux's book is mostly just a sloppy presentation of things explained better by others and, even worse, it contains a variety of elementary errors. why should i waste my time with it?

Yes I'm sure you did.

>holy shit you retard, if molyneux was trying to show the argument was invalid why didn't he address its structure at all?
A counter example proves that the structure is wrong. If anything's subjective is Destiny's "This doesn't logically follow!", this obviously isn't a proof of anything, contrary to the counter-example which does PROVE the argument's form to invalid.

>know Stefan is a shit philosopher
>was aware of Destiny meme but never got around watching him
>see this

I swear brainlets will call anyone smart from their twitch stream heroes. He wasn't entirely wrong to attack Molly here, but also not entirely right to conclude Molly won't elaborate such examples further on. The biggest teller of his stupidity is how inane his rambling is leading up to the example and the smugness of him feeling absolutely correct.

And the way he just starts talking really fast, I assume to sound smart. He always does that. Super annoying

Molyneux's counter examples only attack the premises, they don't touch on the validity of the argument. Explain why you think Molyneux's counter examples prove the form of the argument invalid.

About the error with Molymeme's deduction passage. It seems like he just couldn't be fucking bothered when writing his book. Why would he do anything but phone it in when he has a horde of retards who will buy whatever he shits out as long as it's delivered in a glib way. I have no doubt he understands deductive reasoning otherwise why write a section specifying deductive reasoning? He just clearly lost interest halfway through writing and finished it off with some critique about the premise instead. No one who actually cares will read his book (just look at the fucking cover) except his audience who only care about seeing molyneux pwning people in epic logic arguments.

>And the way he just starts talking really fast, I assume to sound smart. He always does that. Super annoying
The Ben Shapiro Method

I have never saw it so jarring as I didn't see him say anything intelligent when he was talking fast. It's easy to talk fast about nothing much.

I want to see him interviewed by Eric Andre or Zack Galifianakis.

Totally not a cult

>Has anybody studied this philosophical masterpiece yet?

no but i will because lets be honest, molyneux is a genious. ok you may not agree with everything he says but he has conviction and if that isnt a sound argument i don't know what is. lets ask ourselves a few questions about molyneux. is he logical? yes. is he well educated? yes. is he dogmatic? no, he is a free thinker. is he passionate? yes. basically hes everything you want in a philosopher and more. the only people i ever met who didnt like him or recognize his genious are commies and im not making that up. anyone with a brain knows hes smart af. ive seen all of his videos. when i first started watching them i was a naive bluepilled liberal like everyone else. i believed everything the media and my teachers told me. now even though its only been a few years i feel decades older and wiser. i can think clearly and logically and i know a good argument from a bad one (or a nonexistent one). listen to this man he knows what hes talking about.