Skip to main content

Stefan Molyneux and Me



Stefan Molyneux seems to be the hot new thing among young anarcho-capitalists. Not old fuddy-duds like me.

He is the author for example of Universally Preferable Behavior, a book that attempts to expound a rationally impregnable (and secular) ethical system.

I have not read that, or anything else of Molyneux's. I leave to those who have read it to pass on its merits.

I do not rely entirely upon secondary sources, though. I did spend some time listening to one of his podcasts, the beginning of a comprehensive course on philosophy he offers here.  That particular link leads you to a forty minute effort to introduce the subject matter of the remainder of a series. The gist of it, if I understand it at all, is that philosophy, in the sense in which Molyneux proposes to use the term for the duration of the course, the sort of philosophy he hopes to teach, is: a lot like empirical science -- indeed it is empirical science, writ large -- such that any inferences a philosopher reaches must be subject to the check of facticity.

I'm not interested in arguing with that definition of philosophy, but I have to say it does seem to be the consequence of a lot more hemming and hawing than it is worth. It shouldn't take 40 minutes to say what I said in the second half of the final sentence of the previous paragraph. Just say it and get on with whatever is the actual philosophizing you hope to do under that or any other definitional rubric.

He can't give me that 40 minute block of my time back, and he didn't make such a use of it as would induce me to give him more.

I must say also that what I have heard about Molyneux from sources I consider reliable, suggests that reading him or listening to further such podcasts is not really an imperative. He would seem to be re-packaging the arguments with which some of us are already familiar from the works of David Friedman or Murray Rothbard.

Still, there is room in the world for popularizers, and if he can expand the sphere of those familiar with Rothbardian ideas: good for him.  If some of the people who learn of these ideas from him come to think of them as Molyneuxian ideas -- that's okay, too

Anyway, a Facebook friend recently referred me to this, a personal message from Molyneux to his admirers about his diagnosis with cancer.

I wish him well, as I would wish any other patient in the same situation well. And I said so on the comment thread created by that FB posting. But I also had to say in all candor that I'm not one of his admirers.

I hope to be corrected if I'm wrong about him, though, while minimizing the risk of giving up further blocks of time to no effect. So: any Molyneuxians out there: feel free. Give me the elevator pitch. Why is he important?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…