Filosophize Posted June 10, 2013 Posted June 10, 2013 I am currently attending an IHS seminar in Orange, CA all this week. http://www.theihs.org/summer-seminars/libertarian-visionaries I attended a similar seminar last year put on by IHS and was dissapointed that almost no one had heard of Stefan Molyneux and FDR. This year is very different, there are a great many people who are very aware of Stefan & FDR (some say they have served on panels with Stefan) However... There don't seem to be a lot of fans... This has caught me off guard, I guess I have been in a bit of an FDR bubble for awhile... I have been trying to flesh out the specific criticisms... The most frequent seems to be a distaste for Stefs supposed lack of credit given to those who came before him and played significant roles in assisting him in developing his beliefs and ideas.ie: Earlier philosophers The second most frequent seems to be a personal distaste for a perceived lack of humility, a perceived Some have gone as far as saying the various tenants of Stef's thoughts are actually incorrect and pointed me toward various counter UPB criticisms etc.ie: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=383 I would love to get some input from those who know more than I on this issue!
Wesley Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 The most frequent seems to be a distaste for Stefs supposed lack of credit given to those who came before him and played significant roles in assisting him in developing his beliefs and ideas.ie: Earlier philosophers He often has referenced people before him and analyzed good parts and bad parts of different philosophies. He doesn't every time, for this would at best be absurd. The second most frequent seems to be a personal distaste for a perceived lack of humility, a perceived Stef often tries to remind people in conversations of the fact that he is an amateur when applicable (to a bit of an annoying extent, though I believe I understand why). When it comes to arguments of truth, his personal qualities are irrelevant to whether things are true or not. Some have gone as far as saying the various tenants of Stef's thoughts are actually incorrect and pointed me toward various counter UPB criticisms etc.ie: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=383 These things have been addressed on a number of occasions, not to mention that Stef is available for conversation any Sunday show or other conversation.
Filosophize Posted June 12, 2013 Author Posted June 12, 2013 The most frequent seems to be a distaste for Stefs supposed lack of credit given to those who came before him and played significant roles in assisting him in developing his beliefs and ideas.ie: Earlier philosophers He often has referenced people before him and analyzed good parts and bad parts of different philosophies. He doesn't every time, for this would at best be absurd. The second most frequent seems to be a personal distaste for a perceived lack of humility, a perceived Stef often tries to remind people in conversations of the fact that he is an amateur when applicable (to a bit of an annoying extent, though I believe I understand why). When it comes to arguments of truth, his personal qualities are irrelevant to whether things are true or not. Some have gone as far as saying the various tenants of Stef's thoughts are actually incorrect and pointed me toward various counter UPB criticisms etc.ie: http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=383 These things have been addressed on a number of occasions, not to mention that Stef is available for conversation any Sunday show or other conversation. These have pretty much been my responses as well, I certainly haven't listened to every podcast, but I have listended to well over 100 at the least, however a lot of the critics here seem to immediately launch into how the "defoo" ideas are questionable to them, maybe it's because I have been listening mostly to the more recent podcasts? but I had to actually look up this word to see what people were talking about, saw the website that claims that Stef is a cult leader and blah blah but I just don't see it... I have never heard Stef advocate for someone to cut off their family if they aren't overtly abusive. Am I missing something?
Existing Alternatives Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 The most frequent seems to be a distaste for Stefs supposed lack of credit given to those who came before him and played significant roles in assisting him in developing his beliefs and ideas.ie: Earlier philosophers He often has referenced people before him and analyzed good parts and bad parts of different philosophies. He doesn't every time, for this would at best be absurd. Agreed. He does it all the time. Explicitly. I mean, he did an entire podcast dedicated to Harry Browne back in 2006. I attended a similar seminar last year put on by IHS and was dissapointed that almost no one had heard of Stefan Molyneux and FDR. Funny. I consider myself a fairly well-informed libertarian, but I have not heard of Stef right until October 2012 (his appearance at Liberty Now). This movement is pretty much grass-roots and it is simply impossible to keep track of everyone and everything. There don't seem to be a lot of fans... This has caught me off guard, I guess I have been in a bit of an FDR bubble for awhile... While we all work towards the same goal, people have different ideas of how those goals achieved. As we are dedicated to freedom, we are bound to respect and be open to everyone’s ideas. But we don’t have to agree to all or any of them. I have never heard Stef advocate for someone to cut off their family if they aren't overtly abusive. Am I missing something? Stef does promote defoo’ing as one of the tools in one’s journey. I don’t think it is a requirement of any sorts. Do you HAVE to end any communication with your family? Probably not. Should you limit the influence evil people have in your life? I’d say so.
Wesley Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Stef does promote defoo’ing as one of the tools in one’s journey. I don’t think it is a requirement of any sorts. Do you HAVE to end any communication with your family? Probably not. Should you limit the influence evil people have in your life? I’d say so. This is always dependant on what someone wants to do and a determination that the parent's action's were evil, and finally, that restitution becomes impossible (usually because of parent continuing abuse, minimization of feelings, avoidance of problems, too much abuse in childhood, etc, etc, etc.) He has always advised that you go to therapy and have help with the process and have whatever emotional support you can get. Then you talk to your parents and see what happens. The hope would be that such a simple test as to expressing problems, wants, desires, and experiences and allow the option for the relationship to be chosen rather than obligated that the test would be simple and parents would pass with flying colors. I think the existence of anecdotes on here and the state of the world as a whole show that many parents do not stand up to the task of applying choice and voluntaryism into family relationships. There are good parents out there who have stood up to the task, not harmed their children, or tried to make restitution by asking for the feelings, going to therapy, etc. I have seen many amazing parents on these forums working as hard as they can to listen to the thoughts feelings and prefernces of their children. It is so unfortunate that these relationships do not pass more often. It also means that people's hostility to the idea means that they fear that their relationship would not pass the test thus, instead of analyzing to arguments for truth value they are often dismissed.
Recommended Posts