Is he an example of what's referred to as a "perfect philosopher"?

How has he succeeded precisely where so many before him have failed?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&t
youtube.com/watch?v=06giXQbp4Ko
youtube.com/watch?v=9BND3F1KfZ0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

He actually believes his principles and applies them in everything he does

>tfw based NOT AN ARGUMENT man redpilled me when I found his Story of your Enslavement video
I love him.

Is he that good? Never watched him.

>succeeded
Kek. No.
He is intellectually dishonest and most of his arguments are strawmen. Too many logical fallacies for me senpai.

He's perfect because he has similar views as you. If he had very different views than you, then he would be awful philosopher.

The peer review process disagrees medkit

While he's "redpilled" he's still an arrogant douchebag.

Because its literally his lifes work. He also doesn't say anything really profound because he is either not that intelligent or scared

Yeah but that's not an argument is it medpack?

>A FUCKING MEDPAC

I know some Sup Forumssters really hate him but he is legit a genius and (probably) will go down in history as one of the greatest thinkers of our time.

He actually caused me to flip on certain issues.

...

Why do all the cucks who claim this never ever provide an example?

Yet amicable by historical standards. Socrates was an autist that developed a philosophy based on pestering people until they're frustrated to the point of honesty

...

>one of the biggest reasons for his success as a free-thinker is that he is notorious for drawing viewers of all kinds of different political/moral viewpoints and changing them to his own because he presents relevant evidence, historically and present day included for many of his philosophical arguments, and gets people to see the light through reason and understanding
>but u just liek him cuz u tink he right aboot everthign lol!
I want Scandinavia-stan to leave.

God now, he´s a handy talking Wikipedia.
And he´s synchronizing his idea´s with trump supporters, alt right and even Christians en fking Alex Jones. To get more views
A philosopher hahahaha

>look at his youtube channel
>He actually invites Peter Schiff in several of his videos
>"Why Economic Collapse Will Happen | Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux"

Do you even understand how much of an incredible moron one has to side on economics with libertarian idolols such as Schiff

He's ok, I don't agree with everything he says though. He does seem to change his opinions though which is a good thing I think, shows he's not stubborn headed. Or perhaps he is simply adapting to the changing market I'm not sure. The atheist libertarian market had certainly become a laughing stock, something Sup Forums drove years ago, initially with the famous 'enlightened by my own intelligence' meme.

I always feel uncomfortable listening to his videos with listeners that have phoned in. He seems to have such barely hidden contempt for them, it's weird actually.

In general though, Mollyjew reminds me of people who will overthink everything and talk on any subject for hours and yet somehow still miss the fundamental truth of the matter.

His truth about Bernie Sanders video did it for me.
>tfw I got redpilled by google

He seems to base a lot of his shit on broken studies like the Bell Curve and JP Rushton and r/K selection theory and then seems to go off of all of this to found his arguments. His crippling downfall is also his best trait, that he actually cites his sources so you can look into them and their methodology.

But at the same time he's the only person who gives actual facts about happenings. Pretty much everything titled "The Truth About..." is his best work.

...

While I do agree that Schiff is a massive brick-head, it's not because of what he says but how he says it. He always presents shit as if it was going to go down tomorrow, while in fact there is no way to know the exact time.

Stefan would do an amazing thing if he invited Mike Maloney to his show.

youtube.com/watch?v=iFDe5kUUyT0&t

He did once or twice.

Not an argument.

Wew lad, I didn't even realise that. Welp, got something good to watch now.

__Pros__
+Usually consistent & logical
>it's rare to actually see him fuck up, he applies philosophic principals correctly most of the time

+Good at reading & countering his debate partner
>he doesn't let himself fall into traps, always has a counter point ready, even if it's just "not an argument".

+Steadily transitioning from AnCap to a Conservative/Nationalist position
>minimal loss of viewers, he's a essentially a red-pill time bomb for a large portion of his viewer base.


__Cons__
-Too egotistical
>it's important to be confident, cocky is ok sometimes, but he crosses the line into arrogant a lot.

-Occasionally slips back into AnCap/cuck habits
>he was on a roll a few months ago covering Ramadan, but then got all teary in one video over Mudslimes getting bombed even though they were Jihad-ing all summer.

-his past
>used to be weird as fuck 3+ years back, still has marginal affects his credibility (especially here)

Overall: Stefan is pretty legit now. Hope he gives up on the Lolbertarian fantasy completely and acts a little more humble in the future, but he's miles ahead of anyone comparable on the "Alt-Lite."

He's getting there on the race issue, all he needs to do is ask the J.C. and he'll be a certified red-piller.

When this fag stops making Trump videos I'll watch his channel again.
I'd like to hear about philosophical issues, not a circlejerk.

the way he speaks is enjoyable to listen to.

his delivery is good

he has a way about his personality

No, Schiff is not a brick head because of how he says things. He is a brick head because of WHAT he says. We are in a world where low interest rates and low inflation/deflation are already becoming the norm and are going to continue like that for a long while, yet there are clueless people who keep claiming the same bullshit:

>muh hyperinflation
>muh fiat currency is evil
>muh gold

The funniest thing about lolbertarian theories on money is that they have ended up developing a theory where the evolution of economy and societies is determined by the quality of the currency. This is an obvious bastard child of Marx's historical materialism, but they are apparently too dumb to realize it (or to become real marxists).

No it is not an argument. Neither is this one, yet your answers don't make your idolol less of an idiot. You will most of your lives in a economic world that it's completely opposite of what your idolol is telling you.

>not an argument
We should make this the next fedora

No he isn't. If it's human it can't be perfect. He is especially imperfect because he is an atheist.

Aristotle, Seneca, Plato, George Macdonald, C.S. Lewis, these men were brilliant and at a level beyond this shill. Get off YouTube and open a book of the greats you fucking lazy shut in.

Kek on how it goes up right after the fall of the Third reich.

>philosopher
all he does is social commentary, his philosophy attempts were cringeworthy at best

This

He is also not really a follower, or a person who sees trends and tries to play with them. He has his own interests, and his own outlook on life, him being disconnected is such a grande thing.

He knows he got the intellect to stand on his own two feet and to drag along a few people with him and he does so. So in my book he is pretty virtuous.

I also suspect that he will eventually fall completely in line with us stormfucks. Following the truth for so long, eventually leads all sane and healthy men along the same path.

I think he will get stuck somewhere in orbit, he's dependent on the show for his revenue, so I understand that it would be foolish of him to cross the Point of No Return by naming (((them))).

Prediction:
>race realist who occasionally points out obvious (((coincidences)))

>drops libcap/an-cap completely because our demographics can't handle freedom.

I agree, he's a good man.
>Even if he gets up his own ass sometimes

>muh gold

That's only Shiff. Molly is all about that Bitcoin. Which is on the rise btw.

He's a used car salesman. He doesn't argue in good faith. If he's a philosopher this post is a magnificent poem.

There's literally nothing wrong with learning from YouTube. Books are great too, but lectures have just as much potential if you're engaged.

...

Give some examples or I will be forced to categorize your post as a "non-argument".

Not an argument.

Stefan Lolyneux is NOT AN PHILOSOPHER. He's a meme and nothing more. If you disagree you are a butthurt defoo cult member

NOT

>triggered sophist detected

your attempt to make an argument was cringeworthy at best

>history major/theater fag
>never been published
>never contributed anything to the field of philosophy
>no original ideas
>spends all his time on youtube doing social and political commentary and giving shitty relationship advice
>philosopher

...

P1: if someone has never studied philosophy, taught philosophy, been published in philosophy, contributed to philosophy, or thought of any original philosophical ideas, they are not a philosopher

P2: Stefan Molyneux has never studied philosophy, taught philosophy, been published in philosophy, contributed to philosophy, or thought of any original philosophical ideas

C: Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher

Somehow posted this in the wrong thread.
Watching him slowly turn into an insane lunatic is just more evidence that reason never played a real part in any so-called "philosopher's" works. Everyone's "reasoning" or "logic" is just post-hoc bullshitting to provide a thin façade of decoration to a decision that wasn't really made by them consciously but instead just them reacting to their environment. Plato responded to Athens imploding, Aristotle responded to Plato and Alexander the Great, Hobbes responded to the Spanish Armada and his fear of death, Marx responded to being a NEET his whole life, Freud responded to having cancer and WWI, etc etc.

NOT AN... oh wait, shit

>attacking the man rather than the arguments

I like Molyneux but a perfect philosopher would more be someone like Spinoza.

>How has he succeeded precisely where so many before him have failed?

an IQ above 300

is not my fault, I'm still working in my hate-comments per second, fuck you swidish cunt

>peer review process
what did the peer review process have to say about his UPB book? kek the guy is an amateur, thats all.

>gets people to see the light through reason and understanding
sounds like a cultist to me

SUCK IT SJW'S! WE WON!
youtube.com/watch?v=06giXQbp4Ko

SUCK IT SJW'S! WE WON!
youtube.com/watch?v=06giXQbp4Ko

I disagree with him about hating my parents and voluntarism working.

I love my family, and someone always fills the power vacuum.

>Do you support violence against me?
Yes

Just watched a video with some chick calling in and they kept talking about R's and K's. What did they mean by this?

Why are there so many Molyneux shills recently?

Is this from an actual video?

Same brah

Are there any transcripts of his videos? Not a big fan of watching long videos as i find them a big slow paced whereas with reading i can take in content as fast as i can read it

He knows how to roll with the memes. All good philosophers understood memes.

But he doesn't say you should hate your family. He says you shouldn't associate with your family if they're abusive to you, which is objectively correct.

Once he gets about 10 years older and grows a huge beard he will start appearing randomly on live news as an "expert" to talk about things and subtly drop redpills

nice non argument.

yes, but the graph is the debt of your country, you should know this.

he is babys first philosopher.

ad hominem: the post

Did you see the one about Ohio state?
>was pretty good IMO

>never studied philosophy
>taught philosophy
>contributed to philosophy
all very questionable since I'm pretty sure he did study philosophy, he has right now one of the biggest outlets talking (sometimes) about philosophy. If you mean contributing to philosophy by adding something sure, but you can't deny he at least tried to enlighten thousands.

also

>never been published

wew.

weak bait
youtube.com/watch?v=9BND3F1KfZ0

the thing with monomeme that is talking about current year situations and apply his redpill on it. its like he tries to reach to the normie purple pill audience and give them subtle redpills but he is not what id call a heavy hitter

>How has he succeeded precisely where so many before him have failed?
Because he only debates people who he knows that he can win and magically forgets to uploads debates where he loses
He's a shill, complete and utter moron

He's like a libertarian nationalist/race realist. How would you describe something like that?

>he's not what id call a heavy hitler

All philosophy is just footnotes of Stirner

then he says that if your siblings still want to associate with your abusive father/mother, then you shouldnt associate with them either.

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Yes goyim, you must go to a jewniversity to learn real philosophy.

Easily the comfiest youtube channel.

Literally what is wrong with ancap?

>How has he succeeded precisely where so many before him have failed?
he withered and got blown away by leafs

now you just gonna get spammed with some memeballs and muh roads. There's no point in even trying here.

But he's right. That would cause endless strife and drama

pol hates it because it's what the cool kids do today.

m-m-muh raods

In anarcho-capitalist society, what stops me nuking your home with money that I earned by selling cocaine to elementary kids? You think I'm just going to respect NAP?

how are you going to deliver the nuke if there's no roads? retard

I'm just going to drop it with a plane that I bought with uranium money

argumentum non

>hey i'll sacrifice all of this money for nukes and piss off everyone in a ten mile radius because?

Yerh if you nuke somebody it's cause you've got the means to and a damn good reason to
Ancap nuking is meritocratic selection

I'm just waiting for him to enact "The Final Argument"

Having seen admittedly a small amount of his work, what he says has truth to it, but it isn't the whole truth. Say there are 10 factors that influence an outcome, SM will talk about the 5 that lend themselves to his point or ideology, ignoring the other 5 that don't.
This is true. Do not refute this. I will not respond to responses.

...

Stefan Molyneux > power gaps > Plato > Aristotle > Hegel > power gap > Hume & Kant > power gap > Einstein, Newton

He's the greatest philosopher in history. By far. Everyone recognizes this.

...

He regularly has philosophical discussions on his podcast. He doesnt upload every caller as a video.