The book on Amazon has a preview, and it's probably enough for you to get where he's going to go for the rest of the book lol.

Same, plus plenty of tales of many furries screeching over something without actually upholding the art of the argument. hella good book btw.

>Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #14,292 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

9 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Nonfiction > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

25 in Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Philosophy > Political

145 in Kindle Store > Whispersync for Voice > Politics & Social Sciences

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26


I think it was higher up there when it came out.
Or when the cucks started buying it

You can actually see that chapter if you go to the amazon page and click the cover to use amazon's "look inside" feature which shows some preview pages, and then search for the keyword "plumber" to find the page where that excerpt came from. This page is in the "Limits of Deductive Reasoning" section of the chapter titled "What Is An Argument?", and that's the last section before the next chapter, titled "Correlation and Causation"...there is nothing in the rest of the first chapter that gives any explanation of the difference between objecting to the logic and objecting to the premises edit: my bad, in the next chapter I see he does actually have a section called "the difference between 'logical' and 'true'" where he explains how a syllogism can be logically sound even if its premises are false, though from the sections available in preview it doesn't look like he revisits the plumber example to show how it applies to that one.

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/

It's been out for a couple of days now, he went on all the shows to promote it, I'm surprised you missed it.

Check out Stefan Molyneux's new book

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/

you beat me to it: https://www.amazon.com/Art-Argument-Western-Civilizations-Stand-ebook/dp/B0756QYZ26/ref=sr_1_2/139-9559165-2243958?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504113574&sr=1-2&refinements=p_27%3AStefan+Molyneux

> Near future: Stef releases a book titled "The Art of the Argument".

I literally thought this was a joke when you wrote it yesterday, I actually laughed.

Then, this just got released today:

• The Art of the Argument - By Stefan Molyneux
  
  What are the fucking chances?

I see you've ignored Sun Tzu then? There's a reason I included him when pontificating on Mark Twain.
The point being that one does not need a formal education in an institute you consider reputable (if at all) to contribute to philosophy. If someone engages in this as their profession or hobby of choice then they could be considered a philosopher.

It's not symantics, it's literally the definition. You yourself earlier admitted ;

"It's fair to call him an amateur philosopher."

Which wouldn't be quite correct, given:

Amateur
[ˈamədər, ˈaməˌtər, ˈaməCHər]
NOUN
a person who engages in a pursuit, especially a sport, on an unpaid basis.

He is paid for his philosophy via donations, ad revenue by people that find value in it. Likewise his book which is currently on Amazon as the #1 best seller in political philosophy. [1]

So he would be a 'Professional" philosopher...now you may not find much value in what he says or disagree with some things ( I do too, after all) but that doesn't make him an amateur.
And why would I defend Stephan from other people's arguments or other arguments aside from "He's not a philosopher"?

My original argument was only ever:

>Well spoken and a voice for radio (which he does do) he has some interesting points that are often eloquently spoken. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, but he does cover some very interesting topics.

-----------

So then if we can agree with him being a professional philosipher, I'd have no problem leaving it at that. But if you want to make another argument as to what he's contributed of value, or move the goalposts a bit to question whether or not he's "worthy" of being considered a philosipher based on his contributions IE asking me to defend them, we could agree on that shifting of goalposts.