Is he the greatest philosopher to ever live?

Is he the greatest philosopher to ever live?

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/molyneux-problem
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

N

Literally who

First "Not an argument" of the thread goes to ME

Not
an
argument

He's just a bitter racist prick. He hates women too.

not an argument

NOT AN ARGUMENT

>be lolbertarian
>be great
pick one

not an argument

>philosopher

>nigger woman detected (possibly single mother too)

>you
>an argument
Pick one

What is a philosopher aside from a lover of wisdom?

not an argument

are you guys tired to post the same memes?

in before a faggot that replies not an argument

not an argument

___ __ ________

not an argument

Not an argument
ot an argument
t an argument
an argument
n argument
argument
rgument
gument
ument
ment
ent
nt
t

IMHO: Great political commentator; perhaps not the greatest logician.

See:

mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

>Molyneux is by no means stupid: quite the contrary. Therein, I suggest, lies the source of the problems of his book. Because of his facile intelligence, he thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed. Unfortunately for him and his book, he is mistaken.

All that said light years ahead of the mainstream media and worthy of some support.

So what was his answer to what should be the maximum land you can own to maximise liberty?
He went on this awful vagina comparison and he was so sure of himself with his smug face that I couldn't bring myself to finish the video.

When you reclaim your country you need to change flags. That one is tainted, every time I see it I get angry

ban for viral marketing

not an argument

What do you guys think of based Bill Whittle?

Is he red pilled?

You didn't post an argument. Try again

An argument this is not.

>Zionist
Get the fuck off of my Sup Forums you literal JIDF member.

ONE

The post above me is an argument

certainly the most prolific

name one other philosopher that has literally thousands of hours of philosophy online and in print

pro-tip: you literally cant

And this is where I'd put all your arguments...

IF YOU HAD ONE!

(This is top level meming, step it up, kiddos)

On really want Steph to go on Howard Stern

What do you guys think of based Bill Whittle?

Is he red pilled?

Ironically, while all this is true, it's not an argument.

Though Molyneux is by far not the only one to be guilty of this, or the worst abuser of the pretense of philosophising, just more visibly guilty of it. Probably because he wants to put his ego across more than he's invested in the actual specifics of each argument, it comes across as phony.
I will warn all Sup Forumsacks that sincerity isn't a preventative measure against pseudo-philosophy. A lot of people are sincere enough in belief of a position to make pseudo-philosophy work as arguments for bad positions, usually moral relativist positions. Look to the type of people who say sexual deviancy is okay, or who excuse racial predation against outgroups while decrying racial predation on their pet ingroup. Those people are the opposite of "useful idiots", they're useless idiots who only obfuscate things.

So does yours, American pigdog!

Though Ireland's does too, as does Germany's and Canada's, for completeness.
Oh, and France too.

Not this thread again!

That would be Ayn Rand

Admittedly it's hard to see past the mainstream positions on the Jewish question when Israel removes so much kebab and the average GTKRWN commenter is a meme-spouting faggot who can't do anything but build up the "white privilege" boogeyman of the Jews.

Shouting memes and prattling on about the shoah converts morons. Real education about the way things stand relies on the understanding of inter-group competition, and following that, a pointing out and noticing of the patterns of representation in left wing movements.

~Argument

!Argument

I'm convinced that everything that goes through this memelord's ears passes a filter. If it doesn't pass this filter it is deemed a non argument regardless of what the context is
>your change is 5.19
>not an argument

>this

> A lot of people are sincere enough in belief of a position to make pseudo-philosophy work as arguments for bad positions, usually moral relativist positions. Look to the type of people who say sexual deviancy is okay
It seems like you're uncomfortable with certain arguments or dismiss them as "pseudo-philosophy" because they're morally relativist in your view. What's the different between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy?

>ONE DOLLAR

Not an argument

No doubt, it was an observation and an inquiry.

I'm glad we could agree on that.

is an argument

You can't be white

Philosophy must concern itself with eternal truths.
Post-facto rationalisations aren't philosophical arguments.

Pseudo-philosophy would be arguments applied to knowingly seal off certain trains of thought without following the main logic of the central premises.
It's what the TRS people would call "tactical nihilism", as deployed for things like knowledge of race differences, though lots of people too attached to edginess and hatred use tactical nihilism when it comes to doing predatory things against other races, or against innocent individuals with the justification that it being for the good of the race or whatever other ultimately socially-constructed collective is at stake, switching from the position that things can be only justified situationally to the position that certain positions, most commonly, the "benefit" of "the race", can be extrapolated as a universal idea underpinning a system of morality that is not subjective.

Ironically my departure from the cul-de-sac of racialism was precipitated the same way my political journey through libertarianism and paleo-conservatism began, with questions of morals and individualism, things I won't abandon because it's not the in-thing with a bunch of paranoid, degenerate misfits on the internet.

So what you're saying is, it's not an argument?

Not an argument

His show is not philosophy. It's social commentary through formal argumentation.

Give him 20 years of loneliness and you've got Plato 2.0 on your hands

Not an arguementacle

...

>lots of people too attached to edginess and hatred use tactical nihilism when it comes to doing predatory things against other races, or against innocent individuals with the justification that it being for the good of the race

Complete strawman of Molyneux's views. You have no idea of what you're talking about.

a hobo