Is he the Mozart of philosophy?

Everyday his words reach millions, just because he shares his thoughts coherently and logically. He is as accomplished in the academe as he is on Web 3.0

Other urls found in this thread:

goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl224_human_nature/plato_symposium_selections.htm
youtu.be/g9b7NheAsdc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

What do you guys think about based Bill Whittle?
Is he redpilled?

he`s the wagner of philosophy

>Molomeme
>philosopher

yea right, this guy doesn't do philosophy, he does Eristic Argumentation.

In short, he's a Sophist.

he's the peewee herman of philosophy

He's the Proust of Youtube.

so it is written.

He's the Stefan Molyneux of philosophy

>comparing a youtube personality to the genius of Wagner
that's a good one

>Proust
the only way he could even come to compare Proust was if he could write a full 300 pages on what he ate for breakfast, AND keep it interesting and well written.
He's more likely to die of AIDS then even say anything interesting.

Not an argument

Not an argument.

Not an argument.

Non argumentum

>I took a philosophy class at a community college
>I know more!

NOT AN ARGUEMENT

Fuck off.

Not an argument.

He's the Kanye of philosophy.

you want an argument?

I'll give you one when he stops playing with words and starts attempting to discover the Truth.

All he does is look at what you guys say, analyze the beliefs behind them, and then spout some fancy sounding "arguments" (which is to say, sentences that sound convincing [yet only so because you already believe them]) and then proceeds to allow you guys to like his feet.

No.

This

>1 post by this ID

>5 posts

Direct Contradiction.

take your bullshit elsewhere

>and logically
tell me more

I defooed thanks to molymeme

>implying I'm so stupid as to have to resort to a community college.

Correct Beliefs do not translate to Knowledge.

His name is not really Max Resdefault, is it?

...

Too late now i live with my ancap friends and its way better

Is this real?

*Sips tea*

Ancaps are hilarious.

all they care about are "human rights" instead of "what is right."

Its out of context, he just reposted another comment check the video

That's vague.

You're right, why don't we clear it up?

No, he's the Hitler of philosophy

ONE FUCKING DOLLAR

not even the mozard of being named stefan

>>No, he's the Hitler of philosophy
where does sam harris and ayn rand fit into?

Get started any time.

He's no good at debate. apparent lack of interpersonal skill.

How?

good question, I'm not entirely sure, perhaps it would be best to start by examining why it's vague?

any ideas on what itself is vague?

I have a feeling it has to do with the "what is right" part, or perhaps with my generalization of Ancaps.

No one knows what your talking about bro

I Meant what I said here.

Underrated

P1: If a person has not studied philosophy at a high level in academia, or taught philosophy at university, or contributed anything to the field of philosophy, or been published by any philosophy publishers, or come up with any original philosophical ideas, that person is not a philosopher.

P2: Stefan Molyneux not studied philosophy at a high level in academia, or taught philosophy at university, or contributed anything to the field of philosophy, or been published by any philosophy publishers, or come up with any original philosophical ideas.

C: Stefan Molyneux is not a philosopher.

>Implying I am not the most brilliant philosopher on Sup Forums (and by extension-- in the world)
>Implying I did not attend and drop out of community college

quite interesting. It seems that you've created a Criteria for Philosophers.

could you please begin from where you started thinking about this? I am very interested to hear the reasoning behind the Criteria.

How does one join Stefan's cult?

you're right, my mistake, I apologize for doing what this guy is doing and putting a criteria of Philosophers on anyone (you).

You seem to know much, could please explain to me what the best life is? I assume you know (perhaps wrongly), since you're the greatest philosopher in the world.

(((Philosophy)))

>It seems that you've created a Criteria for Philosophers.

"a criterion"

Is English hard for you?

no, I just don't care too much to quibble about grammar on a Japanese Card Trading Forum.

back to the point, do you have any ideas that may point in the direction of our current line of questioning?

P1: In order for state taxation to be theft, private property must exist as an ontological truth, and not as a socially constructed privilege granted by the state.

P2: Private proper does not exist as an ontological truth outside of a socially constructed privilege granted by the state.

C: Taxation is not theft

My life.

His rhetoric is okay. If you actually pay attention during the calls he takes you can spot loads of fallacies within his arguments. He's said it himself a few times - his goal is to convince people. He doesn't praise Socrates for his logic.

> Defooed
> Joined his cult of ancap
> Not going back
> No regrets

I think you jumped the gun here a little bit, first we should look at what private property is.

For example, if Private Property are objects that have the 'property' of being owned, it would seem that many such objects exist, and would also exist ontologically.

>tfw i want to change my name to this now

Obviously, since you are in possession of the knowledge of what the best life entails (which I believe will lead us to the best life), you have the best life.

But what I asked is a different question. I should have said: what is it that the best life is like, I'm looking for specifics and structures by which we can replicate it.

Unless of course you simply mean your Life, as in your singular, single life. Something we can't replicate, since one thing cannot be the exact same as another separate thing.

Still no argument

>In order for state taxation to be theft, private property must exist as an ontological truth
Well I'm not sure where you got that.

Your premises already rely on the semantics of theft being a legal term, I'm sure you don't believe this argument yourself.

My life is a tornado of beauty, and when I look upon its size, scope, gifts and wonder, I realize it is noticeably greater than any other. If you want to play rhetorical games like beauty isn't the standard we all know innately, then you can go right ahead, and I won't bother you with my interest.

That's a dumb fucking argument, even from someone who thinks taxation can be legitimate. By your reasoning, governments aren't murderers either. Theft can be understood in other contexts than simply what the legal system declares it to be.

on the contrary, I think we can indeed come to know what beauty is.

However, I'm quite sure that I do not know, my mind has become so full of nonsense that I seem to have forgotten.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to help me remember?

goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl224_human_nature/plato_symposium_selections.htm

Still mad about your queen being impeached huemonkey?

I should have guessed lol I haven't read Symposium yet, perhaps I shouldn't have been so flatfooted.

It's actually criteria. Criterion is singular and he gave a list, Hans.

I'll give you an analogy, although it is not a perfect one. A father gives his son a toy, but then takes it way after the son misbehaves. That toy was never really the son's private property. If it is anyone's property, it is the father's, because it exists in his house, he bought it, and he has authority over the son to take it away at a moment's notice. He can't rightly be called a thief. At worst, he is an "Indian giver".

>AUTISM TEST
If you are responsible for more than a fifth of the posts in this thread, you have autism.

It will change your life. Here is something I took to heart years ago. It is an exerpt from The Count of Monte Cristo.

>“I had nearly five thousand volumes in my library at Rome; but after reading them over many times, I found out that with one hundred and fifty well–chosen books a man possesses, if not a complete summary of all human knowledge, at least all that a man need really know. I devoted three years of my life to reading and studying these one hundred and fifty volumes, till I knew them nearly by heart; so that since I have been in prison, a very slight effort of memory has enabled me to recall their contents as readily as though the pages were open before me. I could recite you the whole of Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarch, Titus Livius, Tacitus, Strada, Jornandes, Dante, Montaigne, Shakespeare, Spinoza, Machiavelli, and Bossuet. I name only the most important.”

No, Kant is.

No, Schopenhauer is.

He wrote "a criteria".

"A" denotes singular, fucktard.

Never post again.

I like him a decent deal. By far one of the more intellectual Alt-Right youtube figureheads. I wish we had someone better though.

P1: In order for the father's action to not be theft, his authority must exist as an ontological truth, and not as a socially constructed privilege.

P2: Authority does not exist as an ontological truth.

C: It is theft.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you're an idiot.

Also you're wrong.

I also own a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo on my bookshelf I have neglected to read.

I think you're right, I should stop wasting my time responding to the shitposters here and start actually studying.

cлeди зa coбoй

This nigger

>He's more likely to die of AIDS then even say anything interesting.

You lost me there. If you are so brilliant to not found interesting a single thing Molyneux says, how is it that you spend any time here among people who are even less interesting than Molyneux?

so you have to play nice with established thinkers to become a philosopher TM ?

You don't need to agree, but you need to study them to be taken seriously, just like you need to for every other fucking intellectual discipline.

>P2: Authority does not exist as an ontological truth.

I reject this premise.

Congratulations.

but you can do that without taking money from the state.

which is very important in molyneux case since he is a bit of an ancap.
he has written and published more than a book or two on concepts and the like as well as he has done videos that required him to have quite some knowledge of certain philosophers

Steve is a qsuedo intellectual atheist who can't grasp even the most basic spiritual tenants of Christianity. Mozart was a devout Roman Catholic and literally a genius. Go read "Mozart: a life in letters" and you'll see Mozart was insanely smart in things beyond music. All Steve does on YouTube is jack off to how smart he thinks he is.

>spiritual tenants of Christianity

That's a matter of psychology, not philosophy.

Philosophy is inherently analytical, and unless you are talking natural philosophy, Christianity and any other religion has no place in philosophy.

>I'll give you one when he stops playing with words and starts attempting to discover the Truth.
not an argument

How low does your bar need to be to think "I can make youtube videos" is sufficient for being considered a philosopher?

Lol the german burned you on your own language lmao

But first of all do you realize how big of a faggot you are right now? You're defending some random YouTube faggot you've never even met. Lol kys. Who cares what he's labeled as. All op was saying when he said he was not a philosopher was that it is an insult to put Moleynoux in the same breath as Aristotle, Seneca, Plato, Macdonald, etc. they were real philosophers plain and simple. They all believed in objective morality which is a tenant of classical philosophy. Moslionoux doesn't. I don't think he's as smart as you all think he is. If you really wanted to learn something you'd read some of the aforementioned authors essays and debate papers

if those videos rely heavily on philosophical concepts and the knowledge of them that is not a low bar

I wanna violate that NAP.

>natural philosophy

Sorry, meant to say "natural religion".

>"philosophical concepts"
Ah, so they need to be smart SOUNDING youtube videos to meet your bar. Very impressive.

If the only people impressed by someone's discussion of "philosophical topics" are people who haven't studied philosophy themselves, and everyone who has seriously studied it isn't impressed, maybe you should take that as a clue. And for the record, I'm about as die hard a libertarian as they come and am pursuing an actual degree in philosophy.

Mozart was blind you fucktard

No he wasn't.

youtu.be/g9b7NheAsdc