Stefan Molyneux, as you can search for yourself, is a Canadian Philosopher. I bumped into his works some time ago and was mostly interested in his positions on anarchy and the non-aggression principles. Those works are quite interesting, and I encourage people to read and listen to what he has to say on these subjects.
I don't fully agree with his positions, but agreement is not required for visible benefits. To be completely honest, I disagree with some technical aspects of implementations of his theories, not the theories themselves. Disagreement is how we improve ourselves and build our own beliefs.
Stefan has a radio show which is largely based on callers and their questions. The radio show has little to do with Philosophy, and much more to do with Psychology. I'm not going to get into whether or not I believe the advice he provides is good or bad, because while I have extensive knowledge in Philosophy I am not a Psychologist. I have some basic knowledge because I believe that good Philosophy requires knowledge of Psychology, but not enough to determine whether someone's advice is harmful or beneficial. The "defense" portion of this blog is based on something he said on one show which I have seen attacked pretty hard.
To understand the defense you need to first understand what was said. I'm going to paraphrase this down quite a bit, but you can search Youtube for the complete video as well as all of the criticism. I'll let you do the searching since videos are often taken down and re-added with complaints from various parties. The following summary does not need context, but is not a transcript by any means. The purpose is to provide all of the keywords necessary to find the show, and the people attacking the statements. Stefan stated that he has considered having a phone handy so that the NWO (new world order) could call him. He would change sides and rule over people instead of helping them.
The defense.
Everyone who is awake to the world, myself included, has had to ask at some point whether or not the effort of helping people wake up is worth it. The biggest reward I personally get is watching the light bulb go off in someone's head. It's a priceless experience, but it's also very rare. This is one of the many morals of "The Allegory of the Cave" written down by Plato 2,500 years ago.
The other lessons from "The Allegory of the Cave" are that waking people up will not make you extremely wealthy, it will not provide you physical comfort, and you will not often be thanked for the efforts. People will fight to stay in the dream world that someone has presented as reality, because cognitive dissonance is a painful experience.
What Plato does not discuss in this Allegory is that while a few people are trying to wake the sleeping people up to the world, there other people pushing back and trying to keep people sleeping. Since they lack the morals to wake people up, they gain enormous wealth by taking advantage of people who are sleeping.
This is the dilemma for people that can see the outside of the cave. If you change sides life is going to be physically comfortable. You may not get the sparkles in the eyes, but you will have material wealth and comfort that a true Philosopher does not get. It is a moral consideration that is made over and over again, because the fight does not end. There will always be someone trying to take advantage of people, and there will always be someone trying to defend those same people.
I say "true Philosopher" because the definition of Philosopher by Socrates includes the statement "searches for the truth in all things". Socrates also states that it is the Philosopher's duty to wake people up at all costs, even if it costs them their own lives in the process.
In other words, I don't know any Philosopher that has not considered changing sides. With knowledge comes power, and it would be easy to take advantage of people and live an easy life. "Easy" should not be confused with fulfilling, which is what Philosophers should always go back to as their answer.
The Question
Why would you air this question in public without the context and a defense in the same dialogue? In my opinion, this one statement has damaged credibility to the point where I'm not sure he can recover. Every time he defines a position from this point onward, people will be wondering if the dialogue is his, or what someone paid for.
The Request
This is a rather simple request, but I would simply ask that you maintain the definition of Philosophy as Socrates gave it. If you no longer hold the principles of Philosophy as given by Socrates do the world a favor and drop Philosopher from your title. Keep the PHD, you earned that one.
This is a request for honesty, not an accusation. I'm sure if this was dialogue without proper consideration, under duress, etc.. we will have an explanation and apology soon enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment