Can’t wait until someone makes a “The Truth Behind Stefan Molyneux” video.
stefan molyneux is the alex jones of philosophy.
Stefan Molyneux thinks that people want to listen to him ramble on about a topic for 45+minutes.
Dude, we humans have the attention span of a mosquito. If you want to reach new minds, convey your point in 5 minutes or less.
Stefan Molyneux always has this look on his face. It looks like he’s completely winging it and he can’t believe it’s going so well.
Sometimes I Wonder…
What makes someone a “philosopher”?
I know a lot of people consider Stefan Molyneux a philosopher and an equally large number of people consider him an idiot.
I’m pretty sure I can figure out where the line of distinction is between an idiot and one of decent reasoning ability but I’ve never really figured out where the non-philosopher crosses into the realm of philosophers.
Technically, isn’t anyone who has had a conscious thought pandering in philosophy? And as the saying that I just made up goes, once a philosophizer, always a philosophizer.
I agree that Molyneux isn’t the greatest philosopher we’ve seen and technically. He supposedly focused his master thesis on the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, Hobbes and Locke but his masters was in History. Technically, I’m more of a philosopher than he is, since I actually hold a bona fide, state-certified degree in philosophy. Then again, pretty sure Socrates and Kant and the rest of these “philosophers” didn’t have a degree in philosophy. Armatures.
We can even take it meta from here and talk about how this blog post itself is nothing more than philosophizing on the philosophy of philosophers. Okay, that one hurt my brain.
I’ve just always wondered how we make the distinction between philosopher and non-philosopher. Do we consider Ron Paul to be a philosopher? What about Ludwig von Mises? Keynes? On second thought, fuck Keynes. What about Obama, surely he has a new philosophy for what America should be. Is he a philosopher?
Is there a RateMyPhilosopher.com? It links, therefore it is?
And can one really be a bad philosopher or is it simply a case of promoting a bad philosophy? Does bad even exist? Can’t one simply be different? Isn’t the only justification or subjective judgement we can rely on self-contained and self-actualized, hence making the opinion (and existence) of others irrelevant?
Okay, now I’ve gone too far.
You can tell Stefan Molyneux is a shitty philosopher because he likes his own facebook statuses.
Even though I feel like a few of the classical philosophers would have liked their own Facebook statuses.
As for this whole “Stefan Molyneux bashing”. I like the guy. Is he the best? No. But the one thing I see the anti-Molyneux crowd bring up is that one of his theories was destroyed on his own forum by a reader.
To me, that’s no reason to discredit a philosopher. Theories are formulated to be tested and eventually, even the best ones can be broken. It’s not a big deal.
Molyneux has this theory that countries are only invaded for their taxation systems and if there was no taxation or no gov’t than there would be no reason to invade. I disagree with that. i think there’s more to invading a country than their tax revenue system.
This doesn’t mean that there is no merit in anything he says because a few of his ideas are odd or even out and out wrong.
I think the biggest flaw Stefan has is that his sudden explosion of fame has made him a big egotistical. Not that this is world ending, it’s just a flavor that I don’t like.
Anyway, must be a slow week if we are arguing over a YouTube philosopher.