[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 52 KB, 1250x938, stefan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168380 No.4168380[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

thought this would do better as a thread.
Who are the Modern Philosophers /lit/? What do you think of this guy?

>> No.4168387
File: 93 KB, 171x278, 1339365205940.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168387

>stefan molyneux
>philosopher

>> No.4168392

Everything he says regarding libertarianism (things like the NAP etc etc) has already been said before. His original work, UPB, was an utter failure.

>> No.4168401
File: 34 KB, 426x474, Elliott-Hulse1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168401

Elliott Hulse

>> No.4168407
File: 135 KB, 634x605, article-0-1A7EF88A000005DC-205_634x605.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168407

>>4168401
dyel?

>> No.4168409

>>4168401
Really? he just seems like New Age self help + Bodybuilding to me

>> No.4168424
File: 33 KB, 345x238, joe-rogan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168424

are podcasters philosophers, or "thinkers"? does what we think of as philosophy change in the internet age?

>> No.4168433

>>4168380
>Molyneux
>being serious

he's retard tier. i watched part of one of his videos and his capacity for reasoning is pathetic

>> No.4168436

>>4168409
You're mostly correct. Hulse is self educated, to his detriment. He often conflates multiple schools of thought, like he's mixing different shades of Play-Doh into a brown mush.

The thing is, he exists outside of the academic system, and this allows him the freedom to consider things that others might not. You see it in his eyes. A bolt of insight strikes his brain but he's often incapable of expressing the thought appropriately.

I think he's a very intelligent and sincere person who winds up answering lots of petty questions about relationships.

>> No.4168437

>>4168433
how so?

>> No.4168440

>>4168436
>I think he's a very intelligent and sincere person who winds up answering lots of petty questions about relationships.

you are definitely right about that. how much would you value personal experience vs academic experience?

>> No.4168441

>>4168437
he was criticizing some guy he lost in a debate to by saying "he assumes this and that" while making tons of assumptions himself

>> No.4168446

>>4168437
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw

this video, it's the ranting of a butthurt baby who can't win face to face so he makes a video in response to "defend his honor" but still fails to address any points with a serious argument, just more assumptions and empty truisms

>> No.4168451
File: 10 KB, 250x250, sloterdijk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168451

"Faced with its demise, philosophy ... confesses: The great themes, they were evasions and half-truths. Those futile, beautiful, soaring flights—God, Universe, Theory, Praxis, Subject, Object, Body, Spirit, Meaning, Nothingness—all that is nothing. ....
The last philosophy, willing to confess, treats such things under a historical rubric—together with the sins of youth. Their time has come. In our thinking there is no longer any spark of the uplifting flight of concepts or of the ecstasies of understanding. We are enlightened, we are apathetic. No one talks anymore of a love of wisdom. There is no longer any knowledge whose friend (philos) one could be. It does not occur to us to love the kind of knowledge we have; rather we ask ourselves how we might contrive to live with it without becoming ossified."

>> No.4168454

oh god i thought you guys were talking about PETER molyneux this whole time

i was like what he does philosophy?

but then i wasn't really surprised i mean he does seem like he'd make a half assed philosophy book

>> No.4168458

>>4168446
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw
i found alot of these criticisms to be correct. especially the over complicated "word salad" did you really think peter joseph won that debate?

>> No.4168462

>>4168458
>hur hur he speaks esoterically
>i'm too stupid to understand because i'm just common folk like you
do you really think molyneux won anything?

>> No.4168464

>>4168440
I understand what you're asking, but I don't think Hulse is that much different than any other thinker. I don't necessarily believe that Hulse has had more or less life experience than any other person just because he's attractive and muscular. He's a self-admitted outcast.

Hulse has the academic experience, if he's to be believed. He claims to constantly read, listen to lectures, and attend seminars. He just has none of the traditional philosophical structure with which to form and order his thoughts.

>> No.4168470

>>4168462
he was better then peter "trade is coercion" joseph

>> No.4168476

Alex Kierkegaard

http://orgyofthewill.net/

>> No.4168488
File: 54 KB, 487x700, parfit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168488

>>4168451
wow, glad to actually see Sloterdijk here

May I also submit for your consideration, this sexy motherfucker right here

>> No.4168490

>>4168470
Nope.

>> No.4168493

>>4168470
>because the government controls money, people are materialistic and they consume more in the present than defer in the future, right, so you can't say anything about human nature if the government controls people's behavior through the money supply

You actually think these are the words of a man worth listening to?

>> No.4168499

>>4168380
>molynous
who's next? Gretchen Carlson? get fucked

>> No.4168501

>>4168476
fuck that cunt

>> No.4168503

>>4168493
he did have a good point about judging human nature by the standards of today though i thought. also his counter argument about how if we are hobbesian in nature then how does that mean giving one group the monopoly of force help anything.

>> No.4168510

Michel Onfray seems kind of like a bro.

>> No.4168520

>>4168476
This.

>> No.4168527

>>4168503
Watch the video I linked at 22:30

he talks about a sports analogy, but he completely misses the point of it all

he missed the point of the analogy so clearly i have to laugh

>> No.4168530

>>4168454
The basis of every game Peter Molyneux has ever made is that man's ultimate fantasy is to become God.

Somehow he has iterated on that one thought for about 25 years now.

It's a wonder of the modern world.

>> No.4168564

>>4168441

Peter Joseph v. Molyneux was just a bunch of butthurt all over, I'd have to say Molyneux won but only because Joseph seems to have sheltered himself from taking criticism head on.

>> No.4168571

>>4168380
Watched the debate between him and Peter Joseph.
I wasn't impressed with either of them. Personally I think anarchy isn't possible because government itself is an expression of the free market, but on the other hand I don't believe government is the solution for everything either. My problem with Joseph and Molyneux is their either or attitude, considering regarding certain issues government might be the solution but in terms of other problems it might not. It depends on the particular case I suppose.

>> No.4168607
File: 754 KB, 1280x800, 2013-10-09-021200_1280x800_scrot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168607

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw
I googled continuum fallacy and it seems to be an actual thing. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
So it apparently isn't just word salad as Molyneux claimed. If he didn't even checked that himself this would a huge minus in my opinion.

>> No.4168612

>>4168607
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy
Considering he makes them himself constantly

>> No.4168632

>>4168612
You mean Peter Joseph in that particular debate?

>> No.4168641

>>4168607
Molyneux says how you shouldn't just tell him he's wrong but rather you should show him. 10 minutes later or so he says something along the lines of "if you believe the state emerged from a free market you're wrong. I don't know what to tell you. This isn't even worth discussing." Isn't that a contradiction?

>> No.4168662

>>4168641
NO YOU'RE WRONG THE STATE HAS ALWAYS EXISTED

>> No.4168664

>>4168632
Both did, and using as reasoning outside of the debate is pretty stupid..

>> No.4168668

>>4168641
>how you shouldn't just tell him he's wrong but rather you should show him.

this is a fun new rule in debating, did he do this so it would be harder for his opponent?

>> No.4168673

>>4168662
Finally I understand the deeper meaning of the Lion King.

>> No.4168679

>>4168662
how does anyone know where the state came from?

>> No.4168680

>>4168679
If the origins of the state are unclear, then claiming a society without a state is ideal makes little sense

>> No.4168683

>>4168679
Exactly! That's what I'm wondering.

>> No.4168698

>>4168668
Maybe. I think I remember Molyneux saying something like "word salad" and "show me I'm wrong" during the debate but then he kept interrupting Jospeh and after a while both moved on. One of the problems with the "show me wrong" approach is when asking questions is much easier than explaining them. I reckon most people couldn't prove the earth is round if they weren't prepared. I for instance don't understand much about quantum physics so I reckon it would be pretty difficult for lets say a bachelor in physics to explain it to me in a few sentences. Creationists do that stuff all the time like the whole my grandma isn't a monkey argument.

>> No.4168708

He makes this argument:
If you're an organ donor, and you die, your organs are likely to save the lives of seven people. Therefore, killing yourself and giving up your organs is the only good.

Sort of as an argument against redistributing wealth, right? Well it's just one massive false equivalency, I mean let's look at it:

1. for the most part at birth, people are allotted the exact amount of organs they need to live
2. there is nobody with a massive excess of organs (if you had 2 hearts, and one could be extracted and donated to keep another alive, it certainly would be moral to give that heart up)
So there's no true equivalency because you could say that nature spreads the wealth of organs equally (except in medically exceptional cases)

You see, the problem with Molyneux is he explains EVERYTHING through analogy, which is the plebest tier of argument. Analogies rarely serve as a perfect explanation and as I just showed, often times analogies are false equivalencies that manipulate the scenario to bolster the argument of one side

If you think Molyneux is anything but a hack, you are a moron. If you think Molyneux is a philosopher of any significance, then you are doubly moronic.

>> No.4168709

>>4168680
[irony]
Hahaha! This is so unbelievably stupid it isn't even worth answering. If I have to explain I guess you wouldn't understand in the first place.
[/irony]

>> No.4168719

>>4168709
>literally arguing this way

You are so plebe and you don't even understand it

>> No.4168724

>>4168708
Did he really say that? I guess it's a bad sign that I'm not entirely sure.

>> No.4168730

>>4168724
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw&t=37m30s

>> No.4168733

>>4168719
Easy now, "plebe"!? What is that supposed to mean? You can't make up words as you go along.

>> No.4168743

>>4168730
What if I'm a fire fighter? Am I allowed to keep my organs?

>> No.4168754

>>4168743
How about people with no quality of life, and want to die? Should they be kept alive when others could use their organs?

>stefan implies there's an infinite demand for organs

>> No.4168760

>>4168708
This is retarded even as an argument that assumes the correctness of the shitty version utilitarianism it's founded on. If I sacrifice my organs to save the lives of 7 people in critical condition, what is the likelihood that those seven people will all survive long enough and with enough capability to enjoy as much pleasure as I would with all of my organs intact, especially given I'm such a rational actor? What about my loved ones, who will be emotionally, and potentially psychologically, damaged by my suicide for a long period of time?

Also analogy isn't even philosophy, it's rhetoric. Any philosopher worth his salt can explicate even a thought problem.

>> No.4168763 [DELETED] 

>>4168754
I think you should weigh human life like that and calculate it's value because we know how that turned out the last time. I wouldn't open that can of worms.

>> No.4168771

>>4168754
I think you shouldn't weigh human life and calculate it's value because we know how that turned out the last time. I wouldn't open that can of worms.

>> No.4168778

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5jh_lN9TWw&t=54m50s

I guess I don't have to trade then. I could just go into the woods and grow my own food. Perfect.

>> No.4168780

>>4168771
>not being a neoeugenicist

Wow, they're just developing powerful gene studying capabilities, now is the perfect time

>> No.4168787

> if central planning works so great go and start a factory based on that idea and make it work
>stefan molyneux actually said this

>> No.4168816

>>4168787
How the fuck does he think most factories run?

>> No.4168823

>>4168787
Seriously, I don't even know why am listening to the guy. Somehow I'm strangely facinated by the tele mundo tier drama between him and Joseph. Actually, I wish there was more.

>> No.4168826

>>4168823
There was some huge incident where he blew up on a forum member for criticizing his book. Trying to find it.

>> No.4168831

>>4168823
>>4168826
Found it.

http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/

It's worth the read.

>> No.4168832

>>4168816
You have never seen a factory from the inside, don't you?
It's basically a free market where every worker is trying to satisfy the demand of the factory, and the most productive workers get paid the most.

>> No.4168860

>>4168831
>For now, consider how the stage had been set for the publication of UPB. Molyneux, who admittedly had failed as a novelist, academic, and businessman had managed to come up with the answer. The answer that would save the libertarian community. The answer that he began seeking years earlier as he sat with his friends at Pizza Hut.

Ouch.

>> No.4168905

>>4168831
>"Just accept that and wake up every morning and put it on… “We are full of the most amazing knowledge in the world, at the moment, perhaps ever—I’m going to try to remember that for the next week”—and that’s all that you need to do."

Jesus. I'm getting a L. Ron Hubbard vibe from this.

I thought the article was going to be entertaining and I prepared for a giggle, but instead it just hurts. I'm not even saying it's badly written or inaccurate for what I know but it makes me wanna quit any artistic endeavour because I feel like a fraud just by reading about it.

Man, that guy really went for the jugular.

>> No.4168928
File: 1.43 MB, 250x225, lmsb-2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4168928

david benatar?

>> No.4168954

>It is the proof that human beings have been waiting for thousands of years. I believe it is the proof. And it’s held up pretty hard to some pretty hard knocks.

>1:23:21—This is a real singularity point of incredible glory in my opinion, right?

>> No.4168971

>>4168954
Which video?

>> No.4168986

>>4168971
http://www.fdrliberated.com/stefan-molyneux-promise-failure-upb-inside-story-part-1/

ctrl + f. It's an embedded audio file.

>> No.4169026

>>4168708
>thinking the organ donor argument disproves wealth distribution
Wow, he doesn't even John Rawls.

>> No.4169038

>>4168928
Chvrches? Cutie

>> No.4169068

>>4168831
>>4168860
>>4168905
Have you guys read the forum posts it links to?

"I tried to read your blog, but I can't understand it. I have to read sentences multiple times and it still does not connect. When I listen to something Stef podcasts or writes, I also sometimes do no get it the first time, but I feel that if I read it a second time, or third time, I will get it. There is a sense of eagerness to drink it in, but when I read your blog my hands grab my head as if I am afraid my brains will leak out. If Stef is wrong, can you write the essence of the error in a 3 sentence summary ? Like proving the state is wrong can be put in a 3 sentence summary. Violence is immoral, since it gives equal people unequal rights. The state is violence, since it proponents threaten to shoot people when they do not agree with them. Therefor the state is evil."

>> No.4169084

>>4169068
Nope. My brain is already leaking as it is.
This stuff is weirds me out.

>> No.4169146

>>4168380
Stefan Molyneux is a smarmy idiot cunt.

Even his videos on Trayvon Martin were full of smarmy idiot bastardry.

>> No.4169149

>>4168424
Does Joe Rogan have any especially good podcasts? They're all like 5 hours long.

>> No.4169203

>>4169149
Depends on your personal taste.
I wouldn't expect too much. He's funny sometimes but he has many chills on his show. Generally most episodes contain a varying mixture of drug talk, MMA, comedy, youtube videos, informercials and /x/ tier stuff about sasquatch and whatnot. He had Neal DeGrasse Tyson on but they ended up talking about the (potentially faked) moon landing for the first 30 minutes or so.

Here are some recurring points:
>the world would a better place if everbody would take mushrooms, marihuana and or DMT
>drugs made me a better person
>my floating tank made me a better person
>jiu jitsu made me a better person
>comedy made me a better person
>having children made me a better person
>what if what you see on drugs was actually real
>what if we got rid off all the cunts
>nature is craaazy
>chimps are badass
...

>> No.4169215

>>4169203
that is all exactly right. i dont know why i listen to that podcast anymore.

>> No.4169220

>>4168831
holy fuck that is a beatdown. i didn't even know who this guy was before i entered this thread and i'm just blown away by how hard that article goes at him.

>> No.4169253

>>4169215
Me neither. Most of times it's just playing in the backround while I'm doing something else. It's ok I guess but nothing to write home about. I ended up skipping his comedy guests, most of the MMA fighters and Aubry Marcus. Bill Burr I like but he has his own podcast.

>> No.4169257

>>4169220

Would you prefer it went softer?

>> No.4169258

>>4169257
no way it was entertaining as fuck

>> No.4169266

>>4169220
Apparently he had it coming.
He still in full swing though.

>> No.4169270

>>4169253
i find it fun to listen to when he has journalists or people like christopher ryan on. but yeah with the comedians and mma fighters it just feels like talking shit

>> No.4169275

>>4169203
You don't get it. Joe Rogan is a really deep thinker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD7D-Nkfw-8

>> No.4169280

>>4168401
>>4168436
Yea it's true, this guy really does know some stuff.

>> No.4169287

>>4169270
Funny you mention Christopher Ryan, I was thinking about him. The man has an interesting podcast as well: http://www.feralaudio.com/show/tangentially-speaking-with-dr-christopher-ryan/

The Shane Smith episodes would be better if they weren't drunk. Besides that does the guy start looking somewhat sketchy anyhow.

>> No.4169298

>>4169287
yeah i love listening to christopher's travel stories from time to time. i very much enjoyed the episodes with shane smith, it felt like a real human experience.duncan trussell's podcasts are fun to listen to if you want some light hearted hippy in your life.

>> No.4169314

>>4169275
Let me boil it down:
>the world is stupid
>what if it wasn't
>we need to do something about
>technology is great

What are we supposed to do exactly? The guy hasn't any practical solutions for anything besides telling you that you should have your own podcast or that you should start smoking weed. This isn't exactly deep thinking, even with editing and inspirational music underneath. It all just vague hippie talk.

Besides that does Joe Rogan contradict himself all the time where as at one point he will talk about how we're just materialistic assholes and we have to change society and then he flows into a discussion about his love for muscle cars and smartphones.

>> No.4169411
File: 141 KB, 563x528, full plebeian.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4169411

Modern philosophy begins with Descartes and ends with the Neo-Kantians. The important modern philosophers are Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, and Kant. Anything after is considered contemporary philsophy, which basically begins with Frege and Russell on the analytic hand, and Husserl on the continental hand. In short, read something about the history of western philosophy. Plebe.

>> No.4169417

we should really stop using 'modern' and 'contemporary' as terms for movements and periods, tbqh

>> No.4169420

>>4169411
nigga you just left the 19th century out of your whole deal. hegel -> frege is an important era

>> No.4169424

>>4169417
YES

>> No.4169430

>>4169417
Kant is modern. He wrote a lot of his stuff about two centuries ago.

Seriously, what the hell?