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?
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 majesti
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak
17 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers
Post a Comment
Read more