This egomaniac actually believes his a philosopher

>This egomaniac actually believes his a philosopher

Ok, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, Sup Forums what philosophical works has he written and gotten recognition for his work?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GKczW14EO_w&t=2246s
mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
youtube.com/watch?v=3wCZPTSo1_U
youtube.com/watch?v=I-qoC4EmV80
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Nod an argumend :DD

He has a youtube channel with over half a million followers and posts at least 20min. long videos every fucking day.
Ever hear of modern media OP?
Here are two unrelated questions. How many dicks do you have to suck to be considered a faggot and at what age did you achieve this, OP?

He looks comfy in that pick.


UPB is secular EVIDENCE of morality.

There are youtube whores with millions of subscribers that post every day.
The fuck is your point?

Content, for one.

I'll admit his doing good as a youtuber but you still haven't answered my question. He calls himself a philosopher so what philosophical works has he written and gotten recognition for?

You didn't talk about content in your original post, did you faggot?
>He has a youtube channel with over half a million followers and posts at least 20min. long videos every fucking day. Ever hear of modern media OP?

So...

>argumentum ad snek
>NAP (not his anyway)
>UPB meme
>cult like defoing advice
almond activator.

Your question won't really be relevant for another 50 years at least probably.

He has written a book where he presented a theory on secular ethics called universally preferable behaviour.
That's a philosophical work and so even if it is a bit weird to call yourself a philosopher he is literally one.

>has he written
Holy fuck you're dense.
Nice try, fag.

Obviously he's not a philosopher. You don't need to ask the retards on this board to know that. Philosophy is a dialogue. Molymeme never debates his ideas rigorously with other philosophers. It's just him dictating opinions to his audience. That's not philosophy.

Are you a paid shill like all those Destiny Jews here recently?

Even if we don't agree on everything with Molyneous, he is extremely useful and actually knows most of his shit.

Also, amazing... One whole sentence for your very intelligent OP.

Oh cmon, we all know he won't be remembered.

This sounds exactly like Kant's categorical imperative.

>fag
>ad hominem

NOD
AN
ARGUMEND
:DDDDD

You still haven't supported your position at all, and your original comment still only relied on >muh social browny points
literally arguing like a women

didn't he pretend to be a fan girl in his comments, but forgot to log out of his main account?

His book got completely trashed by the Austrian Institute of Economics and Social Philosophy. They told him to fuck off until he figured out how to construct real arguments.

He debates other people all the time, like Steven Pinker or Jared Taylor. Not some video game addicted kids from the internet.

No? You degenerate, stupid libtard fatass?

There is literally zero reason for him to do this since he got million fans.

What a interesting conversation.....

youtube.com/watch?v=GKczW14EO_w&t=2246s

>Austrian Institute of Economics and Social Philosophy
literally who?

i really liked siamese dream

Bro writing a book where you present a theory does not make you a philosopher, just like cutting someone's belly open with a kitchen knife doesn't make you a surgeon.

Here is the critical response to that book of Molyneux's, by the way, so you can see the kind of reception his ideas get:

mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

I wouldn't call him a philosopher because he doesn't fit the mold of the modern intellectual trash that is the current conception of the "philosopher" he is a philosopher in the Socratic sense, he is starting with reasonable skepticism and doubt, then using reason and evidence to arrive at conclusions.
He's a thinker if anything.

>Stefan is a thinker
>Stefan is a thinker
>nod an argumentfags cant say not an argument

wew

An organisation of actual philosophers.

it's still up lol.
youtube.com/watch?v=3wCZPTSo1_U

It's like the national science board but for philosopher. They review philosophical work all around the world. Stefan got discredited and embarrassed by them, they said his work was the worst piece they've ever read..

How do I join? Do they smoke dank weed?

i see whats going on here.

Armchair philosophy is still philosophy

And just curious as to what makes them credible.. Did they give themselves a 5 star rating or something?

>nod an argumentfags cant say not an argument
Not an argument
:D

I think it does though. Having the idea and taking the time and effort to actually present an argument does make you a philosopher.

No es un argumento gringo.

>Presenting a philosophical argument doesn't make you a philosopher

Stefan molyneux pretending his teenage girl

"I love this. You totally kinda ruined frozen for me but i really enjoyed this a lot more than the actual movie. And you really got me thinking about a lot. Being an attractive young woman, I understand what is like to be seen as nothing more than a sex doll. I also know what it is like to use that to my "advantage" to "get over" the system. HELL I even know what it is to suffer mental illness, only to be told bu my parents to ignore it. HOWEVER, despite all of this I feel like I have learned more lessons from everything that has happened in my life. Thank you so much for posting this. Honestly I want to make a difference in the world, and I looked to people like you to sort of guide me in the right direction. THANKS SO MUCH."

Ok then, Molyeux is a philosopher. The same way every teenager with a diary is a philosopher. What an honour.

toppitykek

>"recognition"
>implying marxist liberals in university get to recognize philosophers
sorry shareblue but he's recognized by more people than any shitty marxist philosopher that was shit out of some university. that's why you're always attacking him since so many people watch him while nobody gives a fuck about postmodern/modern philosophy at all except for him

Honestly, anyone on the fence about Molyneux as philosopher needs to see this clip. It's great for redpilling normies
youtube.com/watch?v=I-qoC4EmV80

No. Their diaries are not subject to peer review or criticism like his questions were. Just because you're not a world famous something doesn't mean you are not a practicing something.

>Read every one of OPs posts
>Not an argument to be found

Holy fucking shit. How has he not taken that down??

Oh he's for sure better than those leftist pseudo intellectual philosopher.

You wouln't recognise an argument if this would illegally go to your country, rape and murder your women and children and then take your job and wellfare.

They're not credible as far as economics goes. No one outside of a vocal minority on places like Sup Forums takes them seriously.

>Anyone's theory is a philosophical argument

>peer review
Some teenage gurls read each other's diaries.

nietzsche printed only 500 copies of god is dead and wrote it like a diary because he didn't think anybody would read it.

real philosophers aren't judged by loser marxist who pat each other on the back and haven't done anything worth mentioning or remembering. the future people will remember molymeme while nobody will give a fuck about some pseudo-intellectual on whatever review board who think they're the judges of philosophy. your phony authority fallacy doesn't work and isn't an argument

General recognition, like with any professional field.

>(you)
All these non-arguments

link to comment?

>Stefan molyneux gives his philosophical advice to caller
>Hit your abusive mother with a baseball bat

What is deviantArt.

Are you suggesting popular opinion is usually correct?

on this video
youtube.com/watch?v=3wCZPTSo1_U

>your phony authority fallacy doesn't work and isn't an argument
If you genuinely think all appeals to authority are fallacies please explain to me why you trust doctors.

Expert opinion is the opposite of popular opinion.

not an argument. doctors aren't what we're discussing we're talking about philosophy little shareblue babby. nietzsche destroys your appeal to authority and insults about diaries. molymeme isn't something you can touch you little degenerate retard. you can't ever win

>He knows because he's a doctor
is a fallacy, and is not equivalent to trusting doctors. Appeals to authority for probability are fine. Appeals to authority for truth are always fallacious.
Oh, so you meant "general recognition by experts"

>"recognition"

By who? The leftist infested academia?

>The same way every teenager with a diary is a philosopher. What an honour.

Exactly. There's no shortcuts here, you have to decide for yourself who you're going to listen to. If you take the shortcut of having of bunch of (((academics))) tell you who is and isn't a "philosopher," you're beholden to those academics.

Your choice.

actually
>>Stefan is a thinker
>>Stefan is a thinker
Is an argument

Referencing Nietzsche is an appeal to authority, and a bad one, because that guy was an idiot and not a real philosopher.

How come I've never heard anyone mention this guy outside of /pol?

Argument by analogy is an argument. I'm analogising philosophy with medicine to provide a reductio ad absurdum of your position.

because his a complete nobody who believes his some big shot

>triggered molymeme dickrider

>Appeals to authority for probability are fine. Appeals to authority for truth are always fallacious.
Please try to rephrase that in a way that makes sense.

No it's a claim. And I wasn't referring to that.

>wrong
>wrong
>wrong
>wrong
not an argument loser. you're a loser and will never be a winner, loser.

>loser
ad hominem :D

not an argument

>you can't be a philosopher unless other philosophers give you recognition for your work

WEW

By that logic nobody is a philosopher, because there were no philosophers to give the first philosopher recognition for his work

Appeals to authority for probability are fine. Appeals to authority for truth are always fallacious.
If you don't understand it this time, consider that you may be stupid.
>not an argument loser.
Oh? What is an argument, so I may correct my error?

>If you take the shortcut of having of bunch of (((academics))) tell you who is and isn't a "philosopher," you're beholden to those academics.
It is the philosophical response of those academics to Molyneux's arguments, not their proclamations in and of themselves, that are important.

Are you suggesting philosophers are only given birth to by other philosophers?

Or maybe you're the retarded for for expecting him to understand your point, when you use vague terms like "truth" without defining them beforehand like a good philosopher would do.

there's no need. you're a failed product and will never amount to anything. leftist will never come to power again and will be wiped out in the future

>I DON'T LIKE HIM, SO HE IS NO PHILOSOPHER SINCE HE DOESN'T HAVE MY APPROVAL.

>Appeals to authority for probability are fine. Appeals to authority for truth are always fallacious.
>If you don't understand it this time, consider that you may be stupid.
The only way I can interpret that meaningfully yields a contradiction -- probability is a species of verisimilitude. Gonna suggest the problem lies with you here, mate.

>117110533
He asked a fucking question you autistic huehuehuemonkey

>shillin for schmeckles

"getting recognition" is not a prerequisite for "philosopher". learn words.

> leftist will never come to power again and will be wiped out in the future
I really hope so desu sempai, things are looking bleak as fuck.

why exactly is recognition important? the greatness of an idea is not determined by how many people view it as great.

most philosophers didn't got any kinda of recognition in this early stage, who know how many decades we have to wait for the facts unfold until we can try to judge based on facts that occurred and the guesses we make of what would have occurred if other paths were taken. The need for "validation" from som plebs here for him to be considered a philosopher (whatever that means nowadays) is beyond retarded. Just the fact his message has such a broad reach already makes him a philosopher. Trying to undermine him by questioning his attribution is laughable.

complex question fallacy and contradiction of the principle of charity. No philosopher would need to define "truth" when discussing the truth of a thing, idiot. All propositions have a truth value of true or false, the definitions of which are already widely known and accepted. The difference between probability and truth is the difference between "This is true," and "It is true that this is probable."
>when you're so stupid that all you can do is accuse your opponent of not defining "truth" adequately
That Nietzsche was an idiot doesn't make me a leftist.
I don't know what verisimilitude and I won't google it because its user here is apparently stupid, so it doesn't deserve to be apart of my vocabulary. Truth and falsity are a binary state of being. Something is true or it is false. However, when assessing the truth of something, it can instead be proposed that it is true or false that it is probably true (or false). The latter is a statement of probability of truth, rather than a statement of truth. It is the simple difference between "p is true" and "p is probably true." An appeal to authority for the former is always fallacious. This is obvious, thus you're either just being a contrarian faggot, or you're an idiot.

Molyneux is one step above Rand. He's only slightly less retarded. Not because he's an egomaniac, because he believes the same nonsense about "philosophy" being "logically prior" to science.

What's your problem with neech

Jung was way better

>It is the simple difference between "p is true" and "p is probably true." An appeal to authority for the former is always fallacious
So an argument from authority to argue for the probability of something being true is not a fallacy. There is such a thing as a probability of '1'. But an argument from authority to argue for the truth of something is a fallacy. That's a contradiction, bro. Either that or it's arbitrary -- most probabilities are fine, but shit son not 1! And presumably not 9.9999999999 either.

verisimilitude means*
Any philosopher who presupposes existentialism is necessarily retarded. He was just a butthurt NEET who consistently confused his butthurt for meaningful logical thought, and who used his confusion to take out his butthurt on the notion of God.

>It is the philosophical response of those academics to Molyneux's arguments, not their proclamations in and of themselves, that are important.

We don't disagree. To be clear, I don't think Molyneux is all that great, but I got there myself, not because some Jew in a tweed suit told me not to listen to him.

It sounds like you did too, but I'll stress once again for the benefit of those reading that it's the arguments that are important, not the people making them.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tl4VD8uvgec

L O L
O
L

0.99999999999*