Existing Alternatives Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 There is pretty heated discussion going on right now on Wikipedia on whether or not Stefan can be called a philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#rfc_8186ED0 If you are an active Wikipedia editor, you might want to chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Reading the no votes is kind of funny. That's like asking me if person X is an auto mechanic. Like, how the hell would I know? I don't know enough on the topic to know where "enough" is to qualify for that label. This is ironic since once cites peer acceptance while rejecting peer rejection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH. Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 To be called a philosopher you must have other philosophers say that you're a philosopher? How does that work? No. - The cited references are not RS to call him a philosopher, and only one of them even makes that statement. A bone fide philosopher is widely considered one by that peer group. Merely discussing or dabbling in topics related to philosophy does not make one a philosopher. Molyneux is a podcaster and author. SPECIFICO talk 00:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)+ Writing books and articles, giving speeches on at least 3 different continents, and being the source of millions of downloads on the subject of philosophy is "merely discussing or dabbling"? No – He is properly described as a libertarian thinker (with RS to support the assertion) and one of his areas of interest is "libertarian political philosophy" (in the second sentence of the lede). Leaving these two descriptives as they are is appropriate. Removing "philosopher" from the first sentence is appropriate in accordance with UNDUE. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Seriously, do they know anything about Stef's work? No - Glanced at the references and agree with User:SPECIFICO that none of them seem reliable enough to really use the adjective "philosopher". NickCT (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Hypocrisy alert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Beal Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 "philosopher" is not an adjective ............................................________....................................,.-'"...................``~.,.............................,.-"..................................."-.,.........................,/...............................................":,.....................,?......................................................,.................../...........................................................,}................./......................................................,:`^`..}.............../...................................................,:"........./..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"............/.`~,......`-...................................../.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,.....`=~-,__......`,....................................................`=~-,,.,...............................................................`:,,...........................`..............__.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``........................................_..........._,-%.......`..................................., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Feel free to spend your time on this... unfortunately, Wikipedia is pretty damn close to a pure, direct democracy, which means that if language can be manipulated to serve an agenda, it will. The agenda to avoid personal responsibility encompasses many, many people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Vote now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted May 29, 2014 Share Posted May 29, 2014 Wikipedia: When a metric ton of NaCl isn't enough grains... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 The agenda to avoid personal responsibility encompasses many, many people. And the desire to do so by avoiding accountability of parents, teachers, politicians... everybody we've been inundated into believing are virtuous by title alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 To be called a philosopher you must have other philosophers say that you're a philosopher? How does that work? Pretty much the definition of a drinking club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 intellectual snobbery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nerburg Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This topic made me reread stef's page again, and it's looking way better than it did last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 If a "philosopher" on Wikipedia has an objective definition, then it's really not that difficult to determine if Stefan (or anyone) is a philosopher. By this definition, a philosopher is one that makes arguments from first principles based on reason and evidence. People who don't do that aren't philosophers. Most people have the mental capacity (though they may not have the emotional maturity) to evaluate this to some degree or another. If a "philosopher" on Wikipedia is self-referential, that is, only philosophers can truly identify another philosopher, then you've got a problem. How do we know that those philosophers are indeed philosophers? Well, they were identified as such by other philosophers. And how about them? It's an academic circle-jerk of philosophers regressing to infinity (or, at least, to an individual who got the idea that only people he called philosophers could be philosophers). Either way, this method is fraudulent. One of Wikipedia's greatest weaknesses is that it is subject to language manipulation. Arguments don't matter, only symbols do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHeron Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 It is Turtles all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnus Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Vote now. First, determine if your sources "seem" reliable "enough." Of course, you'll then have to check the sources' sources, and then check their reliability through other sources, but only if those other sources seem reliable enough. Repeat until you die. Pretty much the definition of a drinking club. Wikipedia is the dullest drinking club I could possibly imagine. They give drinking clubs a bad name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 I think, therefore I am a philosopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Wikipedia is the dullest drinking club I could possibly imagine. They give drinking clubs a bad name. Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. That idiot is pretty much wikipedia to me. I thought that describing the moderation process as a "drinking club" would up its standing a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Dean Posted June 2, 2014 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Wikipedia: When a metric ton of NaCl isn't enough grains... you might want 2 or 3 metric tons, just to be safe. I used to think that Wikipedia was pretty reliable on things not political in nature. How naive of me to think statists don't make everything self serving and political. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesP Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Oh, but politics and the family are inextricably related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruthBeTold Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Definitely a slew of negative bias from the people over there, but facts and evidence win out. That means finding good sources of information on Stefan that they haven't found yet, and bringing them to attention (especially if they make a direct mention of his career as "philosopher"): mentions in "mainstream" places like books, newspapers, or top websites commentary about him from other philosophers or well-known people citations of his work in academic journals Post here if you've got anything good, or if you're a Wikipedia editor, bring it up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts