If you want to support the show all you have to do is subscribe - it massively helps me in keeping the show on the road and get more great guests so we can dive into the topics that you want to hear about. Thank you for your support!
As long as ideas are reconstructed, I don't see a problem with deconstruction. How can you even talk of knowledge about something without deconstruction? It's not nihilistic to understand the different moving parts of something we take for granted. Fuck me, I wish I had the understanding of paradigms and normativity at a young age.
I'm a teacher and can tell you today that nothing like Dr Alka is suggesting is being taught in school. Gravity is gravity, Maths is Maths, History is History - including an assessment of all the mistakes this country has made as well as it's successes.
@@pema7159 It is absolutely right to teach children to be accepting of difference including same-sex attraction, trans and race. Anything that goes much further is a political position and I would not have any part in it. I seriously had a child once that identified as vegetarian but ate meat!
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Not for me to dictate how everyone else should act or feel or believe. I am from a very blue state thus I grew up with liberal sensibilities. I travel throughout much of the USA and see how different the culture of many states are. I see proud. hardworking people who do not want to be dictated to. People have a right to their religious beliefs whether we agree or not. My graduate degree focused way more on race/gender than clinical skills and I graduated feeling greatly disappointed in my education. My opinion, and we are all entitled to our own.
I would have been interested in this, but the sound and video quality were so bad (lagging sound, Dr Cuthbert so close to the camera and unfocused that it hurts to look at her) that I could not finish the video. Please fix this, so interested watchers can enjoy your content!
Yeah, if someone could just *explain* how a critical examination of stated, or claimed facts inevitably leads to an utter disregard for fact, that'd be *great* .....
This was a beautifully succinct explanation of deconstructionism. Can anyone point me to philosophical theories that offer a successful solution to the conclusions drawn by deconstructionism which to me, seem to amount to intellectual gaslighting. I’m not a philosopher so if anyone has any answers I’d appreciate it if you’d dumb it down for me! I appreciate that there are post postmodernist theories such as meta modernism that try to ‘thread the needle’ of modernist and postmodernist strands of thought but from what I can tell, it seems to be something of a philosophical sticking plaster. I think my main issue with postmodernist thought is, from what I can tell, is that it essentially seems to make the claim that there Is no truth, it’s just a matter of perspective. While I understand that to some degree, surely, to understand the whole truth of something you have to understand it from all perspectives and while you can never know all perspectives on something, surely not all perspectives are equally valid? Some perspectives have more empirical ‘facts’ on their side and therefore should surely have more weight. I’m just a layman trying to make sense of what often seems to be a lot of intellectual word salad so anyone who really understands this stuff, please correct me if I’m wrong!
Catholicism. I’m only half joking when I say that, but I did take an epistemology course in college, and it was the course that ended postmodern thought for me permanently. I didn’t believe anything was true until I took that course. Looking back on it, it was only the professor that made the difference. I don’t think there was any amount of reading I could do to make modern and pre-modern thought make sense.
@@derek4412 Would you mind explaining what more specifically about it changed your mind? You don’t need to go into it any massive detail but was there some trigger or was it something that slowly replaced the nihilism of postmodernist thought?
@@mark_tolver "The only truth is there is no truth" was the logical axiom that professor used. He must have referenced it at least 5x over the course of the semester, writing it on the board each time. The fallacy within it was apparent to me, as well as my classmates. How could we claim "there is no truth" without positing that sentence as true? It helped me see that even though I was a functional nihilist, I didn't see that postmodernism/nihilism also made a truth claim, despite pretending it did not. Around the same time I was watching a TV show and the hippie school counselor told the student in front of him "The world isn't black and white...the world *is* gray" Do you see the same logical fallacy present? I began to see this bad reasoning everywhere. Every time I hear anything that whiffs of postmodernism I know it's not true because the underlying assumptions are untrue. I'm so convinced in the idea of objective truth that even entertaining philosophical thoughts from people who don't hold there is such a thing as objective reality seems like a distant memory.
@@derek4412 Thanks, this was a really useful insight. I’d already come to the conclusion that the postmodernist claims of there being no meta-narratives while replacing it with a meta-narrative of there being no meta-narratives couldn’t logically justify itself. Your explanation really helped to clarify my thoughts on that. It would be interesting to know what the postmodernist answer to the “The only truth is there is no truth” fallacy is.
Ayn Rand is the greatest mind that has ever lived. We have evolved in a very harsh environment, those that survived accepted that A=A, and that there is an objective reality. If one doesn't accept the reality of objectivity one will be lost in a labyrinth of philosophical fallacies. There are plenty of Grifters out there who want to live off your confusion and ignorance. Objectivity and reason allowed for weak creatures like us to survive in a very harsh environment. There is no way this world could carry the population that it does without the application of reason and objectivity. Unfortunately the grifters have captured the zeitgeist, and are systematically deconstructing reality, because of their ego and greed. This will result in the destruction of society. This is an evolutional phenomena and will result in an evolutionary dead end; some insects lose their wings if there is a constant water supply, but when the water supply dries up, they are fucked, those that have retained their wings can fly to another water supply.
If you want to support the show all you have to do is subscribe - it massively helps me in keeping the show on the road and get more great guests so we can dive into the topics that you want to hear about. Thank you for your support!
Piting one against the other is what the right does. Divide and win.
British level sarcasm here😂😂😂 luv it
As long as ideas are reconstructed, I don't see a problem with deconstruction. How can you even talk of knowledge about something without deconstruction? It's not nihilistic to understand the different moving parts of something we take for granted. Fuck me, I wish I had the understanding of paradigms and normativity at a young age.
I'm a teacher and can tell you today that nothing like Dr Alka is suggesting is being taught in school. Gravity is gravity, Maths is Maths, History is History - including an assessment of all the mistakes this country has made as well as it's successes.
Enjoy the school in which you're teaching - it's becoming a rare exception of the rule.
@@WisdomRebellion I don't think it is, at least I hope not.
Absolutely not my experience of my recent graduate degree. It was exactly what she spoke about.
@@pema7159 It is absolutely right to teach children to be accepting of difference including same-sex attraction, trans and race. Anything that goes much further is a political position and I would not have any part in it.
I seriously had a child once that identified as vegetarian but ate meat!
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Not for me to dictate how everyone else should act or feel or believe. I am from a very blue state thus I grew up with liberal sensibilities. I travel throughout much of the USA and see how different the culture of many states are. I see proud. hardworking people who do not want to be dictated to. People have a right to their religious beliefs whether we agree or not. My graduate degree focused way more on race/gender than clinical skills and I graduated feeling greatly disappointed in my education. My opinion, and we are all entitled to our own.
I would have been interested in this, but the sound and video quality were so bad (lagging sound, Dr Cuthbert so close to the camera and unfocused that it hurts to look at her) that I could not finish the video. Please fix this, so interested watchers can enjoy your content!
Go take your meds
Focus on the content. Just listen... 😂
Yeah, if someone could just *explain* how a critical examination of stated, or claimed facts inevitably leads to an utter disregard for fact, that'd be *great* .....
This was a beautifully succinct explanation of deconstructionism. Can anyone point me to philosophical theories that offer a successful solution to the conclusions drawn by deconstructionism which to me, seem to amount to intellectual gaslighting. I’m not a philosopher so if anyone has any answers I’d appreciate it if you’d dumb it down for me!
I appreciate that there are post postmodernist theories such as meta modernism that try to ‘thread the needle’ of modernist and postmodernist strands of thought but from what I can tell, it seems to be something of a philosophical sticking plaster.
I think my main issue with postmodernist thought is, from what I can tell, is that it essentially seems to make the claim that there Is no truth, it’s just a matter of perspective. While I understand that to some degree, surely, to understand the whole truth of something you have to understand it from all perspectives and while you can never know all perspectives on something, surely not all perspectives are equally valid? Some perspectives have more empirical ‘facts’ on their side and therefore should surely have more weight.
I’m just a layman trying to make sense of what often seems to be a lot of intellectual word salad so anyone who really understands this stuff, please correct me if I’m wrong!
Catholicism.
I’m only half joking when I say that, but I did take an epistemology course in college, and it was the course that ended postmodern thought for me permanently. I didn’t believe anything was true until I took that course. Looking back on it, it was only the professor that made the difference. I don’t think there was any amount of reading I could do to make modern and pre-modern thought make sense.
@@derek4412 Would you mind explaining what more specifically about it changed your mind? You don’t need to go into it any massive detail but was there some trigger or was it something that slowly replaced the nihilism of postmodernist thought?
@@mark_tolver "The only truth is there is no truth" was the logical axiom that professor used. He must have referenced it at least 5x over the course of the semester, writing it on the board each time. The fallacy within it was apparent to me, as well as my classmates. How could we claim "there is no truth" without positing that sentence as true?
It helped me see that even though I was a functional nihilist, I didn't see that postmodernism/nihilism also made a truth claim, despite pretending it did not.
Around the same time I was watching a TV show and the hippie school counselor told the student in front of him "The world isn't black and white...the world *is* gray" Do you see the same logical fallacy present? I began to see this bad reasoning everywhere.
Every time I hear anything that whiffs of postmodernism I know it's not true because the underlying assumptions are untrue. I'm so convinced in the idea of objective truth that even entertaining philosophical thoughts from people who don't hold there is such a thing as objective reality seems like a distant memory.
@@derek4412 Thanks, this was a really useful insight. I’d already come to the conclusion that the postmodernist claims of there being no meta-narratives while replacing it with a meta-narrative of there being no meta-narratives couldn’t logically justify itself. Your explanation really helped to clarify my thoughts on that.
It would be interesting to know what the postmodernist answer to the “The only truth is there is no truth” fallacy is.
It was interesting that the professor seemed to believe that this statement was true, despite believing there was no such thing as truth.
Ayn Rand is the greatest mind that has ever lived. We have evolved in a very harsh environment, those that survived accepted that A=A, and that there is an objective reality.
If one doesn't accept the reality of objectivity one will be lost in a labyrinth of philosophical fallacies. There are plenty of Grifters out there who want to live off your confusion and ignorance. Objectivity and reason allowed for weak creatures like us to survive in a very harsh environment. There is no way this world could carry the population that it does without the application of reason and objectivity. Unfortunately the grifters have captured the zeitgeist, and are systematically deconstructing reality, because of their ego and greed. This will result in the destruction of society. This is an evolutional phenomena and will result in an evolutionary dead end; some insects lose their wings if there is a constant water supply, but when the water supply dries up, they are fucked, those that have retained their wings can fly to another water supply.
Thought this was on the toxic nature of Abrahamic religion