Do you guys know this fellow, SisyphusRedeemed? Maybe you've known about him for a while and I'm just late to the party. Sorry about that.

He's unleashed a blistering, but credible (I think) analysis of Molyneux on YouTube called The Damnation of Philosophy.

Some critics of the video suggest SR is a little overboard, since Molyneux "never claimed" to be the salvation of philosophy. (But I believe his claims certainly add up to that.)

The video also appears to add to my list of borrowed, renamed, and rebranded Molyneux concepts, starting with the phrase "Self-detonating argument."

I'd be interested in your thoughts, though.

Just a quick note to say that, earlier today, I learned about this video (from a thread on FDR! http://freedomainradio.com/BOARD/forums/p/27337/211778.aspx#211778 ), watched it, and got curious about the guy's other videos. I've not watched about five of them, and I've really enjoyed them. He speaks on various philosophical issues.

What's neat is that many of his videos are in response to videos by other people, and he always links to them. So through his videos, I'm learning about a whole network of philosophy videos on YouTube.

this guy writes a very helpful summary of the points the guy makes in his video btw.

It amuses me that all his supporters are finding to say here is that this guy is "condescending" and thus shouldn't be taken seriously. How many times has Stefan been condescending in his responses to others? (I haven't watched the video yet so can't comment on its contents.)

Stefan of course doesn't have to listen to or respond to this guy. But this guy also has no obligation to be curious about Stefan's emotions, even to garner a response from Stefan, as at least one person has suggested. I think this is one way in which Stefan misuses/confuses people about the principles behind RTR. It is only necessary (or even helpful, really) to inquire about someone's emotions if you are in an emotional relationship with them. It would not help two philosophers find "objective truth" (though it might help them identify psychological issues hindering them from seeing that truth.) But exploration of emotions only works in the context of a trusting, established relationship. Otherwise, it muddies things at best, and leaves one or both people vulnerable to manipulation at worst.

(Side note: I think this is something that creates a weird dynamic at FDR. The fact that people are expected to relate to strangers the way they would close friends or lovers. This just isn't how the world works -- for good reason, I think. Like I said above, it can leave you vulnerable to manipulation by people who don't truly care about you. Because everyone is forced to act friendly, warning signs that would typically prevent them from oversharing are erased, and the admittedly still sick sides of people there are left to prey on them. Classic case-in-point, people with serious hatred for their parents encouraging those who seem more like normal teens with normal parent issues to develop hatred towards their parents as well.)

ah, I see. it's a bit ambiguous

Agreed, it is ambiguous. I've reworded my post.