philosophy meta-forum

Leiter vs Molyneux

Chou

166 day(s) ago

Leiter is now targeting Molyneux. I would love to see Molyneaux's reply, but I don't think he cares. (rightly so)

Bernhard

166 day(s) ago

I hadn't heard of this book before, but now I'm definitely going to read it. You just made it happen, Leiter!

Nishi

166 day(s) ago

I dunno, this Molyneux guy sounds like a dumbass blowhard to me. Makes sense that he's a Trump fan.

Ernesto

166 day(s) ago

If this blog is now where assholes go to defend Breitbart and Molyneux, then it's finished.

Ralph

166 day(s) ago

If this blog is now where assholes go to defend Breitbart and Molyneux, then it's finished.

Ernesto

Aww ... was someone triggered?

Sir

165 day(s) ago

I have never read anything by Molyneux, but somehow I doubt Leiter would be comfortable calling him a "charlatan" on the word of a "young philosopher" if Molyneux was a crackpot socialist rather than a crackpot libertarian.

Johannes

165 day(s) ago

Even the Mises institute thinks he is a charlatan: https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

It sound like he thinks he is too clever.

Reinhardt

165 day(s) ago

If this blog is now where assholes go to defend Breitbart and Molyneux, then it's finished.

Ernesto

Aww ... was someone triggered?

Ralph

yuup!

long live the internet

Reinhardt

165 day(s) ago

I have never read anything by Molyneux, but somehow I doubt Leiter would be comfortable calling him a "charlatan" on the word of a "young philosopher" if Molyneux was a crackpot socialist rather than a crackpot libertarian.

Sir

bingo.

Nancy

165 day(s) ago

Read the critique at Mises, maybe his fan here should too. Molyneux's conflation of biological regularities with universal prescriptions is charlatan-tier. Into the trash he goes.

Bernhard

165 day(s) ago

If you're going to read the Mises critique, also read Molyneux's response at https://antiestatismo.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/stefan-molyneuxs-response-to-david-gordons-review-the-molyneux-problem/

Nishi

165 day(s) ago

Wow. So I just read the review at Mises, and holy jeez this Molyneux guy is more ridiculous than I could have ever imagined. Comically bad. (Seriously: read it for more than a few good belly laughs.)

Evelyn

165 day(s) ago

If you're going to read the Mises critique, also read Molyneux's response at https://antiestatismo.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/stefan-molyneuxs-response-to-david-gordons-review-the-molyneux-problem/

Bernhard

What did you think of the response? Imho Molyneux was consistently missing the point, or focusing on irrelevant aspects of Gordon's reply. It definitely didn't inspire me to take a look at Molyneux's book.

Nancy

165 day(s) ago

Ok then, here's Molyneux's response to the point I mentioned:

"UPB is not synonymous with ethics – ethics is a subset of UPB. It is so obvious that biological laws are not the same as moral laws that I don’t even know really how to reply to it. Biological laws are involuntary, universal, objective, and scarcely need human or philosophical reinforcement. Moral laws are voluntary; I can choose to steal, but I cannot choose to be an amphibian. Exercise is a choice; the effects of exercise are not. If you argue against the validity of UPB, however, when you are only alive because you have followed UPB (eating, drinking, sleeping), that is a self-detonating argument, the same as yelling into someone’s ear that sound does not exist. This only proves the validity of UPB, not the subset called ethics."

So ethics is voluntary and a "subset" of what is involuntary? Subsets don't work like that. The guy doesn't have a fucking clue how to argue properly.

Dogen

165 day(s) ago

If you're going to read the Mises critique, also read Molyneux's response at https://antiestatismo.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/stefan-molyneuxs-response-to-david-gordons-review-the-molyneux-problem/

Bernhard

What did you think of the response? Imho Molyneux was consistently missing the point, or focusing on irrelevant aspects of Gordon's reply. It definitely didn't inspire me to take a look at Molyneux's book.

Evelyn

Like that paragraph about Gordon's use of the word "claim"? JFC

Mani

165 day(s) ago

I look forward to Brian's take on Sargon of Akaad

Chou

165 day(s) ago

If you're going to read the Mises critique, also read Molyneux's response at https://antiestatismo.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/stefan-molyneuxs-response-to-david-gordons-review-the-molyneux- problem/

Bernhard

What did you think of the response? Imho Molyneux was consistently missing the point, or focusing on irrelevant aspects of Gordon's reply. It definitely didn't inspire me to take a look at Molyneux's book.

Evelyn

Like that paragraph about Gordon's use of the word "claim"? JFC

Dogen

The guy clearly doesn't know the jargon.

For me it's a big plus.

Long live Molyneaux

Wilfrid

165 day(s) ago

Stefan Molyneux may not be much of a philosopher, but he does have a helluva radio voice. Velvety af.

Mani

165 day(s) ago

TIL "claim" is a term of art

Gottlob

165 day(s) ago

It's one thing to "not know the jargon"--that's fine, as long as you make it clear to readers what you mean. It's pretty obnoxious to not know the jargon but nevertheless pester others for not knowing and using your idiosyncratic jargon. I don't think that should be a plus in anyone's book.

Maybe that would be forgivable if his terminology were extremely illuminating and helpful, and if it really would behoove all of us to switch to using it. But--and I say this as someone who hasn't read the book, and is just going on this Mises critique and his reply to the critique--that strikes me as highly unlikely. It looks as if he conflates distinctions left and right, and is generally arguing at the level of a clever college freshman. Whether you're sympathetic to his politics or not (that's kind of the point of linking to the Mises critique), I don't see how you can think he deserves to be taken seriously.

Boetius

165 day(s) ago

Molyneux's reply accomplished the major feat of making me think even worse of his book than the very negative review he was responding to did.

Alexis

164 day(s) ago

Molyneux's reply accomplished the major feat of making me think even worse of his book than the very negative review he was responding to did.

Boetius

Try consoling yourself with some good academic philosophy, if such exists.

Bernhard

164 day(s) ago

If you're going to read the Mises critique, also read Molyneux's response at https://antiestatismo.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/stefan-molyneuxs-response-to-david-gordons-review-the-molyneux-problem/

Bernhard

What did you think of the response? Imho Molyneux was consistently missing the point, or focusing on irrelevant aspects of Gordon's reply. It definitely didn't inspire me to take a look at Molyneux's book.

Evelyn

Fair enough. Hubris strikes! Dunning-Kruger! Question: is he curable?

Evelyn

163 day(s) ago

Fair enough. Hubris strikes! Dunning-Kruger! Question: is he curable?

Bernhard

Doubtful, imho. Not because he's too stupid or anything, but just because if he's a remotely normal human being then he's going to have a lot of ego invested in the idea that he deserves his fame and followers. He would have to overcome a massive amount of cognitive dissonance to give that belief up. If I had that many youtube followers, I'd probably have a very hard time appreciating evidence that I was a hack.

Gottlob

159 day(s) ago

The book is clearly terrible. But some of the reviews are also terrible, especially the one that thinks this is all about "very average white men who can’t understand why people don’t find them as impressive as they find themselves".

Gottlob

159 day(s) ago

The review in question goes on to say: "He is desperately in need of education himself, although I wouldn’t blame you if you preferred to put him ‘through the fist’". This is not a great advert for the high intellectual standards of professional philosophy.

Alexis

159 day(s) ago

Ayn Rand goes online!!

Arthur

159 day(s) ago

The book is clearly terrible. But some of the reviews are also terrible, especially the one that thinks this is all about "very average white men who can’t understand why people don’t find them as impressive as they find themselves".

Gottlob

Agree. That attitude is part of the problem, because those that have it can't understand why it would be a problem.

Alison

159 day(s) ago

Molyneux's book sounds terrible, but his otherwise sensible critics keep shooting themselves in the foot with the casual racism of disparaging "average white men."

Georg

159 day(s) ago

Molyneux's book sounds terrible, but his otherwise sensible critics keep shooting themselves in the foot with the casual racism of disparaging "average white men."

Alison

Yeah it strikes me as very bad strategy. The reason I am sympathetic to this campaign against Molyneux is that I fear the consequences of a whole bunch of students coming into the discipline with entrenched but muddled ideas about logic and argument.

Realistically, the students who are at most risk of this are the ones for whom adding any kind of race/gender angle to the critique of Molyneux (whether accurate or not) is going to make them immediately skeptical, and will make the critique less effective. That sort of review is great at getting likes and shares from the people already on your side, but for the much more important (albeit less entertaining) purpose of inoculating naive minds against the intellectual disease Molyneux represents, it's counterproductive.

posts per page.