Is there anything in it?
I guess I’m missing something. Judging from that review, the book itself just seems like a poorly written book on logic, with bad examples, nothing more, and nothing really specific to the alt right.
The review does get a bit technical, but it’s necessary to unraveling the conclusions. This is a common practice, say things that sound logical but really aren’t, then state a conclusion that is really born out of nothing. He does address those conclusions.
A few key points from the analysis:
His essential premises are
- Arguments have the potential to be objectively better or worse.
- A better argument is one that more accurately reflects objective reality.
- Objective reality is both rational and empirical.
- Therefore, a better argument is one that is more rational and/or supported by more empirical data.
Which leave us with not much. You need a good definition of reality and reason, which he never does. He doesn’t seem to know or acknowledge Munchausen’s Trilemma.
And, in this statement, I think you can see where he’s going with this.
Societies that encourage ostracism flourish, because their social rules contain rewards and punishments. Societies that disallow or punish ostracism lower — and eventually destroy — the value of The Argument, because failure to conform to The Argument no longer carries penalties.Arbitrarily and incomprehensibly define the basis for truth, then start kicking people out who don't agree with you.
A few key points from the analysis: His essential premises are 1. Arguments have the potential to be objectively better or worse. 2. A better argument is one that more accurately reflects objective reality. 3. Objective reality is both rational and empirical. 4. Therefore, a better argument is one that is more rational and/or supported by more empirical data. Which leave us with not much. You need a good definition of reality and reason, which he never does. He doesn't seem to know or acknowledge Munchausen's Trilemma. And, in this statement, I think you can see where he's going with this.We are talking Stefan Basil Molyneux, right? Is he some big deal to take note of? I'm asking because I have listened to a few of his videos and he reminds me more of Mike Yohe than any serious thinker. How many fans does he have?Societies that encourage ostracism flourish, because their social rules contain rewards and punishments. Societies that disallow or punish ostracism lower — and eventually destroy — the value of The Argument, because failure to conform to The Argument no longer carries penalties.Arbitrarily and incomprehensibly define the basis for truth, then start kicking people out who don't agree with you.
Oh dear what tangled webs we weave.
http://www.fdrliberated.com/the-day-joe-rogan-discovered-the-real-stefan-molyneux/