Postmodernism: When you kill everything that makes up Western Civilization and piece it back together as a shambling nihilistic Frankenstein's monster to terrorize the populace.
This is the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of postmodernist thought: Postmodernists want to assert that no knowledge framework is superior to any other, and therefore that any meaning we choose can be derived from the world (the central idea behind deconstructionism), but at the same time, claiming that there is no absolute truth, is by necessity, a claim which trumps all knowledge frameworks, so paradoxically, the claim "there is no objective truth", IS the objective truth, by their own reasoning! To obscure this inherent instability at the heart of their philosophy, the postmodernists intentionally try to make their fields as jargon-heavy and impenetrable as possible. Most postmodernist papers are complete fucking gibberish! Frankly, they know they're talking shit, and go to great lengths to obscure it.
*"All facts are just opinion."* *"Is that a fact?"* If *"Yes"* , the statement is refuted, as the original speaker acknowledges the existence of fact. If *"No"* , one is not required to pay attention to the original speaker because they're not making a truth claim.
@@totovader Postmodernism is not the view that their is no truth and that every theory is as good as any other theory. No Major Postmodernist or really even any Academic ever has held that view. Relativism is a concept used in Postmodernism, but in a descriptive manner I.e. Describing how people's view of the world is relative to certain cultural factors not in a Prescriptive manner I.e. telling people that there is no such thing as truth. Most Postmoder ists don't even offer an epistemology (theory of knowledge) and one's that do usually offer a practical account of knowledge I.e. what's true is what works.
Can you explain why America's political terms are all ass backwards? Liberal in America means what conservative means in Europe, libertarian in America means what liberal means in Europe, and in Europe libertarian means communist, while in America socialism means what social democracy means in Europe. Why is all of this?
Not really I'm french but I can traduce for europe I think: US - Europe Conservative - Traditional christian far-right Liberal - Conservative/Neoliberal Neo/ordo liberal - Neo/ordo liberal (I know no one speaks of ordo liberalism but it comes in the french left wing youtube saying the EU isn't neo but ordo liberal, I'm not sure myself and I think it's the same in the us but not sure eigher) Far right - Far right (the populist one: Trump, Le Pen, UKIP, Wilders ect...) Classical Liberal - ... (doesn't exist, the few follow american culture) Libertarian - ... (doesn't exist, the few follow american culture) Libertarian socialist - Left-wing anarchist (collectivist, against power: an-com, an-syndicalist, an-"ecologism" and tons of subkind) Anarchist - Right wing anarchist (individualists, only against state: egoists, an-caps) Communist - Communist
would love to her that from someone a Bit mor sophisticated like sceptic (an Yes i just said that the man in armour, who happen to Talk to 2 little angels is sophisticated )
Mechaghostman2 I can't speak for Europe here but from The UK it is nigh on impossible to map the ideologies onto one another along party lines. For example one of the comments here says UKIP is far right. Mostly not really by manifesto they are closer to libertarian in that they reject big government. Tbh. As far as UK politics goes left and right are out dated concepts
People got sick of trying to seriously convey messages and realized that most people only respond to humor so we communicate sarcastically with memes for human connection to help soothe the existential dread
I did my degree in Post-Moderism. You give a fairly good explanation to begin with but make a few basic errors. One is you lump logic and reason and empiricism together throughout the video, whereas in Modernism logic and reason not kindred with empiricism or even allied, they are opposing views. Making this distinction is especially prevalent because Post-Modernism tends to reject logic and reason and accepts empiricism without question. Secondly you make the common mistake of viewing Post-Modernism as an ideology rather than a description. A person with the flu can be described as having the flu by a doctor, but the person with the flu can't call themselves a fluist. Post Modernism is an observation and reporting of what is happening in the world not an ideology to follow. From about 7:35 your case study is an error. You say humanities departments have adopted their own version of reason abandoning empiricism. This is perfectly correct. However this is not an example of a Post-Modernist ideology, it's more an example of Modernist Rationalism. Yes some people people mistakenly call it Post-Modernism, but it's the exact opposite of Post-Modernism which is a rejection of any truth in reason. Describing what these people are doing as Post-Modernism is about as accurate as saying Cultural Marxism is an example of Marxism. You then give a list of abstract SJW words and then say they are Post-Modernist words and can only be proven through the lens of Post-Modernism. This again is quite incorrect, once again more examples of Rationalism. Post-Modernism can prove nothing, it denies all abstract truths. In summery. Post-Modernism is a form of extreme scepticism. So extreme, sceptics reject it for being too sceptical (which is kind of ironic). It looks at the world and gives a description of the present, saying people are losing faith with western modernity and beginning to reject it replace conventional truths and values which ones they have made up themselves. It is not condoning this, or advocating any of these new made up values. Post modernism also as a system of scepticism pointing out these new made up values and truths are of no more or less validity than the ones they are replace, everything is subjective. In each generation new values and ideologies replace the old, claiming they are true and previous wrong. Post-Modernism analyses, then describes and predicts what Humanities Departments, Flat Earthers, SJW's, the Alt Right, New Atheists, rampant consumerism and so on are doing, it not the ideology of any of them. It's the Doctor examining them, and them the flu diagnoses.
thank you, i also tought that the video was good up to 7:35! And it just turned pure ideological and nonsensical afterwards even contradicting what himself was saying before...
He seems to think modernism is postmodernism, he has the two completely confused. Describing modernism and calling it post modernism. What he calls modernism seems to be something he made up in his head........ Ironically he's actually a symptom of postmodernism himself, making up his own subjective reality.
Regardless of Sceptic's argument, Post-Modernism is a cancerous ideology (Definition of “Ideology” = “a set of BELIEFS, values, and OPINIONS that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class THINKS, acts, and UNDERSTANDS THE WORLD”) Not only is that “my truth”, so it’s AT LEAST as valid as “any other truth”, Post-Modernism is also empirically bad. Try teaching AI to make sense of the world through a Post-Modernist lens - good luck! Let me know how that works out for you and whether it merits the “I” in AI - I promise you it won’t. You can take that promise to the bank, because it’s as true now as it would be if it was proven scientifically - according to Post-Modernist theory.
Judging by the comments, only about half of the people here have heard of this concept before. Postmodernism does not simply reject logic. It critiques logic as a symptom of positivism and is skeptical of its objectivity (or objectivity of any kind) and its universal applicability. It acknowledges the existence of things that we take for granted but explains them from a different perspective. Sure the Age of Enlightenment is good and everything, but the philosophies that emerged from it are crude and overtly optimistic at times. Also, the word "post" when talking about disciplines or schools of thought is used to indicate a contribution to something that came before it and not an outright rejection of it. It builds on modernism by critiquing and replacing certain parts of it.
The problem I have with postmodernism is that following its own principles you have to question postmodernism itself. It basically invalidades its own perspective.
Can we all agree that all these 'movements' are just philosophers jerking each other off, and that we're safer if we watch from a distance instead of mindlessly embracing any of it?
OberstSkeptic, The problem with empiricism is that following it's own principles you have to reject empiricism itself. It basically invalidates itself.
Simple: post modernism says everything, including reality, is subjective (it's not). Example: a man *saying* he's a woman now means he is because his words say so and also HE believes everyone around him HAS TO believe that he is a woman (because reality is subjective...when it's not). Post modernism creates ideological cults of absolute nonsense. It's a brain virus.
Well technically you could make sploosh sounds using mayonnaise and you could make"music" using those sounds. So it would be a musical instrument? I'd imagine the music would kinda suck though.
England isnt a city. Its a country in a wonderful place called europe. Even though they might have left the EU. Theryre still one of the most powerfull contries in the World. Did you know that they almost owned the entire World at one time! Its insane how they were able to become a World superpower Even though theyre so small. Now back to youre question England isnt a city its a town in mid London
Anarcho capitalism is purely the Non-Aggression Principal in action. Libertarianism is the non-aggression principal being mostly enforced but there is still government, therefore still taxes, but the government is "limited government"
We really should limit government as much as possible, it makes sense. Government is a weapon, and we should only unleash it on those who initiate violence or initiate threats of violence.
OK anarcho-capitalism is a belief of a branch of libertarians. It's the belief that government should not interfere in the free market AT ALL. See the teachings of Adam Smith if you want to understand more. Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with true anarchy.
Post-Modernism as a concept is fine. The problem is: nobody is using it correctly. They’re just destroying things and not reassembling it to understand it, hence: not truly utilizing Post-modernism.
@@rebekah293 What if we're reflecting on an ideology that is absolute? If an ideology clearly states that "if you're not with us, you're against us", then it's correct to say that this ideology deals in absolutes. Nothing is wrong with absolutism as long as it's about objective provable, observable facts.
Well, that's because Republicans define socialism as anything they don't like. The true meaning is "ensuring the social welfare of all people", and I think that's how the left uses it, but the right just uses it as a general expression of condemnation.
Well, Noah, when a Quark and a Leptop love each other very much, God rolls some dice and then the whole universe is made. There you go, hope that helps.
>be a skeptic >question everything and look for the true value of the things >look at postmodernism >realize it's about questioning everything and looking for the inherent value and logic behind all things >condemn it for doing it Say what?
There is “questioning” everything, and then there is denying/rejecting everything. Its less of an openminded perspective as it’s often dogmatic and fanatical.
You should do a full series on postmodernism; answering the questions it raises on metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and science. The skeptic community needs to attack postmodernism by the bottom-up, and not the top-down.
Post Modernists don't have anything coherent to say about metaphysics, epistemology, logic or science. So it would be a very short Q&A session. You need to think of Post Modernism as a kind of *fashion*.
Just because they don't have anything coherent to say, inasmuch as they are deconstructionists and not constructionists, doesn't mean it hasn't become an academic cancer. The problems they think exist within modern values need to be challenged; we need to defend modernism at its very foundation.
Will Nitschke but postmodernism has become a major part of western society. Even if most of it is fluff, learning about it would be exceedingly useful. How can you fight or even coexist with people that are that alien to your ideas? We must understand to be right and to explain why we are right!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Philosophy didn't just create postmodernism out of thin air. It's the result of thousands of years of study in epistemology, logic & metaphysics. Such an attack would be akin to a toddler trying to teach an evolutionairy biologist about creation.
Jordan Peterson already does this, and far more expertly than you could reasonably expect of Greg. Not hating on Greg or anything, just that J Peterson is far more experienced in this area.
What I get from this is postmodernism is kind of like the new enlightenment era, in the respect that we're just questioning everything because we've seen faults in the current way of doing things
I think he ment it got more widespread during the Enlightenment. Having more than the upper class have people with logic, or education for that matter (in terms of ideas and even literacy).
Yep. The reason the Catholic church fell apart and a bunch of different "protestant" denominations formed was in part because of this. Once the Bible became readily available in the common language, the commoners who read it suddenly realized all the lies that the church was promoting, as before the Catholic church required all Bibles to be written in Latin and said that only priests could intemperate scripture. (God forbit anyone read it in a language that the Bible was ACTUALLY written in... Like Greek or Hebrew... Muslim leaders do the same thing to control their people, forcing them to read their scripture only in Arabic and rejecting any translations, thus keeping their followers ignorant of the actual text, but at least the Quran actually WAS written in Arabic!) Since the masses were mostly illiterate, and even those who could read couldn't read Latin, the Pope and the Church could say ANYTHING and have the public accept it. Once people could easily read the Bible for themselves, the Church's power began to crumble. That's also a big reason for the rise of the concept of separation of church and state. They knew what a corrupt central religious authority could do, and knew the persecution such an organisation was capable of.
True, the Church was pretty much the only real source of developments in the Middle Ages but that was exactly the problem. Instead of sharing that knowledge and works with the world and examine different views on it from scientific perspective they hid it so that "simple people" wouldn't have doubts about the whole thing. Also they liked killing people trying to learn on their own by claiming they are dealing with Satan. So while I agree with your point, I do think that over all Church is responsible for trying to stop scientific progress by all means.
You are correct here. However. The Enlightenment is often considered by many as not a bringer of new, but a bringer of the past. Works such as Plato and Aristotle were found by many figures in the Enlightenment; some newly translated. This lead them to be inspired by their works and their beliefs in logic, and the individual, which lead to the popularity of humanism during the movement by those such as Rousseau and Da Vinci, to name a few. The fairly new printing press and its culture additionally supported the popularity of these modernist ideals. Thus, whilst The Enlightenment didn't "create" reason or logic, it was the largest and most influential movement in the modern era that popularised it.
Finnylicious Well if we have public roads then maybe we should have drivers licenses (although I'm skeptical) but if we have private roads then maybe the market mechanisms would figure out some other solution.
Libertarians believe in freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to defend yourself, the pursuit of happiness. They believe in the free market and are responsible for the biggest period of wealth in america. The funding fathers of america were all libertarians. They did all they could to create a constitution that would defend everyones natural rights. Personally, my favourite is Thomas Jefferson, best president EVER, hands down.
Sexual Assault Rifle Yes it's the radical idea that putting cement down on flat Earth is not so fucking complicated that only Bernie Sanders can do it.
@@thedarkmaster4747 No it's not... scepticism is a denial of the certainty of knowledge. It's decidedly anti-rationalist (though not necessarily empiricist). Guess what's also anti-rationalist? Experimental science. Rationalists told you the humors were a thing... empiricists like Pasteur introduced you to the world of microbiological contaminants. Learn basic fucking philosophy, people.
@@adelahogarth2761 What the fuck? Skepticism is far from empiricist what the hell are you talking about? How can you assert skepticism is empiricist without questioning whether or not your sense perception can be trusted? Skepticism is neither rational nor empirical. It is also not a denial of certainty of knowledge it is the questioning of it. It is very simply the question. The methodology of the answer is not a part of skepticism.
I don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that post-modernism is basically wrong without actually looking at post-modern theory in a direct way (Discipline and Punish etc.).
This is a terrible mischaracterization of Post-modernism. You make it sound like a political philosophy of "do whatever suits you", when in reality, postmodernism brings up questions like "what if there are variant forms of logic" and "to what extent does language influence the way we think something is true". These are legitimate questions. Western Logic is analytical and linear, being based in mathematics. Hindu Logic, for example, though, is based in Grammar, and results in paraconsistencies. As a result, not only are the ideas between west and east different, the fundamental assumptions are different. Also, the modernist west has been chained to the subject-object dichotomy, at least since Descartes. But the idea that "I think therefore I am" makes sense is based in the principle that every verb must be tied to a noun. That is a fashion of certain western languages, not a principle of philosophy. And there are null-subject languages like Korean.
Sigalius Mýricantur fair point ; it’s still a bit rich though ; for postmodernism to deny certainty and still expect.us to take their own narrative seriously .
It just sounds like a bunch of over processed bullshit that really has no structure or absolutes. So in theory from a "post modernist" diagnosis (I can't say perspective right?) Lets say I've been diagnosed as having post modernist looking beliefs, the video poster is correct because it is HIS version of the definition. Therefore its correct. Everyones perspective of what post modernist means is correct. Therefore its a useless term. There are Plenty of other rational, structure terms and or constructs to take its place. like reffering to "dimensions" as a means to reasonably distinguish both sides of the skewed dichotomy line "post modernism" likes to constantly have in place for the sake of infinity.
Classical liberals see more utility for the State than libertarians. Classical liberals are Utilitarian while libertarians are deontological. Classical liberals have general principles which they are flexible with while libertarians have a first principle from which everything else logically branches out from.
No the truth is "classical liberals" are what are known as neo-liberals. Neo-liberals are not that much better than neo-conservatives. Those who identify as centrists have to tread a fine line to avoid going too far to the upper right or lower right of the political spectrum. I dont have too much trouble with those who align themselves on the right so long as they dont desire theocracy or try to justify fascist overthrows of democratically elected governments because it somehow gets in the way of one's economic stances.
I disagree with your notion that classical liberals must be utilitarian. Many were, but I do not see it as a main component. The whole idea of separating classical liberals and libertarians is foolish. Libertarianism is obviously not a unified philosophy, but rather an overarching group of subgroups that are centered around liberty. Ancaps, minarchists, and many other distinct subgroups all fall under the broader umbrella of libertarianism. And one can come to libertarian conclusions not only based off of natural rights or NAP logic, but also through utilitarianism. Many anarcho capitalists argue for the abolition of the state on grounds of maximizing welfare. They mention all of the negatives that come from government and then keep going until they conclude with "government hurts liberty and liberty is good so therefore no government maximizes the good".
classical liberals are essentially fiscally conservative democrats. they believe in a self regulating market and small government, but also support immense personal freedoms, such as gay marriage, etc..
He just needs to adapt the normal response in such a situation: "What, my video is wrong? ... Ofc! It was satire, you idiot!" The "you idiot" is important because you don't want other voices in your echo chamber than your own.
From what I'm understanding is that postmodern is a type community imperialism. What I mean by that is that postmodernist want to tare down the system to rebuild it and control it. And now they are the modernist. Multiple groups can want the same outcome but it's always whoever causes the outcome will now control and set the new rules. I don't anything about postmodernism. But this is my view on it. I would appreciate any sort of feedback. It can be negative or positive
@@NoName-eu2xw Community imperialism... So, like, the minority for whom something is oppressive changes that thing so that it isn't oppressive. That sounds oddly familiar...
Can you help me understand how to form my thoughts better, in a way that meaningfully conveys my intended message? I struggle with that :^) Like, figuring out how to say this took way too long, and I still don't know if my question truly conveys my original intentions. Maybe, instead of such a specific question, why don't I broaden it: How can I argue my points without making a fool of myself because of poor speaking skills? How can I become better at organizing my thoughts?
Step 1: chill Step 2: read what you wrote out loud Step 3: meditate (for real lol, sit in a quiet area and just contemplate) Step 4: write down your question again.
I kind of hope he or someone actually does a video on this, because I have this problem too, at least to some extent. I mean, if I'm writing it down, I could probably convey my ideas pretty well if I have enough time, but when actually speaking, I tend to either forget the words I was about to say for whatever reason, or I just can't think of the words to properly convey what I want to.
Post modernism is where you take down the fence, then examine each fence post to see which ones are rotted and need to be replaced. After you have "modernized" all the posts that need to be replaced, you then re-attach the fence.
Left Anarchists aka Libertarian Socialists, antifa or not, believe in the abolition of all illegitimate/unjustified forms of hierarchy, hence An"archy". Generally they're against authority structures in society such as the cops and military, corrupt governments and any form of Capitalist institution/private property. Since they are also Socialists, they generally advocate for workers' democratic control of the workplace. Right Anarchists aka Anarcho-Capitalists, believe in the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), private property, free market & the Invisible Hand, believe that taxation is theft and the the government should be abolished. Since they are pro Capitalist, they considers wage labour a 100% "voluntary exchange", generally want to maintain the rigid hierarchy of a Capitalist system, and insist that they have absolute authority of the workplace (because it is "their property") over the workers. edit: fix typos.
ウタ Hiro but you NEED a dictatorial government with a millitary and extensive prison systems or death camps to impose a communist structure on society, so is it not an oxymoron?
BastiatReport basicly anti-capitalist / socialist is a group. And there are multiple movements in that group, for example Marxism or Anarchism. Opposed to the other group: Capitalism, with conservatives, social democrats and anarcho-capitalist as movements. Antifa is not part of this tree. It's not the same thing. Edit: I guess i misunderstood the question, sorry for that. I thought Ancap stood for Anti-capitalist. Stupid me.
Should have talk about the Frankfurt School and it's "critical theory" and the influence of french postmodern thinkers such as Foucault , Derrida or Bourdieu... They are the one who divided the society between oppressors / oppressed
Postmodernism is beyond most of the skeptic community. The only reason some of them are beginning to discuss it (post modernism has been discussed by philosophers since the 1900s) is because Peter B. Jordanson is talking about it, and he is super hot right now. Skeptic did a pretty bad job explaining post-mod though. Its quite simple. Say you have a book written by someone. You read that book and find the meaning behind the book that the author was getting at. A Post-Modernist would say, you cant know for sure what the meaning behind the book is. There is an infinite amount of meanings, and therefore, you don't know what the TRUE meaning is. This makes post-mod deadly, because it basically is relativism on steroids, and and if it permeates, we will all go back to the stone age.
That's only a slither of postmodernism. It's not relativism on steroids, because that itself would be an absolute, and as such non-postmodernist. It's a way to respond to truth claims, not identify or correct them. Nor do I see you debunking that line of argumentation.
Just for the sake of a laugh, but do you grasp that a shape-shifting being with the ability to bend perception through hypnosis actually is a postmodern notion? It's a being that can change both it's own perception of self but the perception of identity of others, the postmodern human ideal if you will. But yes it common application is crap.
Peterson doesn't even know what is marxism, post-modernism, etc. neither Armored Skeptic. At this point they are just buzzwords with no meaning other than to claim moral superiority over some philosophical beliefs that nobody in academia and not even any philosopher in the last 10 centuries believed or defended. Seriously. Read articles from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not wikipedia. Or just read Derrida and Deleuze already.
(1) "The red pill of the 18th century" has to be the most cringe thing ever said. Sorry :/ (2) I don't think you understand that philosophers have always debated what objective truth is. It's called epistemology. We didn't just start doubting it because of some 20th century artistic movement. (3) Stop making all these false equivalencies. (4) You can empirically study things like "rape culture." If you don't understand the process of studying psychological sciences, or if you think that it is not possible because "postmodernism," then I'm sorry, you too are doubting your precious "objective truth." (5) To that point, the scientific method doesn't claim objectivity, but it is our only hope of falsifying things to a certain degree of objectivity. Without it, we fall down into death spiral reasoning, which lets our beliefs inform our observation inform our belief creation. Can't be checked. The sci-method is the best we've got, but can't *prove* certain things because of the process of falsification and theories (ex: it's *difficult* both to prove a multiverse and might just be *impossible* to prove a god's existence). Perhaps those religious people post-Enlightenment were the first "postmodernists" because they stopped looking objectively at things. But I also wouldn't say that. That is simply incorrect. Still, it doesn't give them any more validity. See where I'm going with this? (6) The Enlightenment caused many things, but the Industrial Revolution was still more than a century away. Yes, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment paved the way for this, but so did many other things... stop saying misleading things and making false equivalencies, again. (7) For a skeptic, you really don't challenge your own assumptions. It makes me feel misled.
I gave you a thumbs up because yes, the video is wrong, but I don't think you actually understand the claims of postmodernism. It's not "some 20th century artistic movement". It's the latest philosophical development in things like epistemology. Speaking of challenging assumptions.
You are 100% correct that postmodern thought affects far more than the arts, but in the context of the sentence I was employing a polemic to make fun of Armoured Skeptic who lumps together far too much and gives far too much credit to this phantom threat of postmodern thought. This is because, again, we have doubted objectivity for longer than the postmodern movement. And if you want to nitpick, just because I only attributed postmodern thought to an artistic movement in one sentence of my reply does not equate to me not understanding the claims of such a paradigm of thought.
Here's a fun rabbit hole for the willing. "Shakespeare didn't even exist." Hey it's not my idea. I'm not sponsoring the idea just merely relaying the fact that it exists and it's surprisingly compelling.
researching for a school project. by far the most straight forward and easy to understand video I've found so far, and it even made me laugh. Good one!
Well, it's not that easy to research. First, because of the huge volume of material, second, because you would need some kind of introductory notion, which can take time (ie, at least dip your toes in philosophy and history, which he doesn't do AT ALL) so you could actually understand notions, terminology and historical sentiments. Let's not even go into the more complex things, such as is Lacan a postmodernist and why? Just an example.
@onetoone a great way to shit people up, "You don't talk about what you haven't researched extensively!", While respected people, like JBP, name postmodernism as part of the philosophy behind CRT indoctrinators, and Antifa/BLM rioters.
probably because they teach history, not philosophy, and I agree with the other guy just because Greg's explanation is laid out well and would be all well and good if it was true, he too is not a philosopher and explains it poorly.
In a class I took on world religions, we discussed how modernism where religion is vacant and the horrible events that occurred in the 20th century created a post modernist world where nothing matters anymore and we as a species have no idea where to go next. We discussed a famous soviet dissenter, whose name I cannot spell for the life of me, who explained the reason why mankind became this way he said because "man has forgotten God".
As someone who has actually written academic papers on postmodernism, I find your take on postmodernism woefully ignorant even at the most basic level.
@@murn3229 you want some scholar point of view and be enlighted by it? GO READ SCHOLAR'S PAPERS, thats where you go to leart that, not a fucking youtube comment section.
So, after many years of not watching AS, I've come back to this video after having gone through the proverbial mill of third level education to see if what skeptic said aligns with what I've since learned about postmodernism and share my insight on how it affected academia. My field is history, so I'm going to discuss what the postmodern movement did to the historical community. Rocked it's ass is the answer. It was the 1980s and everything was a lie. Since the 1800s historians worked under the assumption that by delving into archival sources and supplementing them with some archaeological evidence an objective historical fact could be discerned. If you had Jesus' birth certificate you could claim with certainty he was born on the 25th December 0AD. Posmodernism then pointed out that historians were looking at the past through a medium, the sources which survived. Having Jesus' birth cert didn't make his date of birth a fact, it only made the existence of someone recording his birthdate a fact - the accuracy of sources was thrown into question. Then came the matter of narrative. Postmodern historians concluded that if a historian compiled as many sources as possible and then wrote a book on his chosen topic his account was not an uncovering of the facts of history but instead a reconstruction of what the past might have been to the best of our knowledge based on what sources say. All history out of necessity discards information which isn't pertinent and indulges in conjecture where information is limited. In this way a historian fashions a narrative in order to create an argument. The reason why historians disagree when using the same sources is because the narratives they've constructed point in different directions. This point on narratives and reconstructions has now been largely accepted as a limitation of the historical method in modern times, even by historians who are quite vocally against post-modernism. The most obvious example is the enlightenment principle of progress. Basically, enlightenment philosophy proposed that mankind was on an exponential trajectory of improvement, we would continue to get smarter, be wealthier, live better. History written with this mindset formed a narrative which reflected that ideology, so if you wrote about the french state it was a history of how the french people were destined to pull themselves out of absolutism and achieve wealth in industrialism - everything had a trajectory. Modern (really postmodern) history rejects this notion, there is no inevitable trajectory to improvement in anything. If we take a concept like lower class wealth, we no longer expect and then write about the gradual accrual of capital, we instead see an ebb and flow, some generations live wealthier than the ones before and then there's some crash and everyone's worse off for a couple of generations. History is unpredictable and volatile. However, the sticking point of contention was the idea of 'objective truth', this was the really concerning spanner that postmodernism threw in the historical works. If historians couldn't achieve objective truth then why were we studying history at all? The belief that history couldn't prove anything was then coopted by holocaust deniers. 'Historians only make reconstructions, they can't prove the holocaust happened.' This all came to a head with the Irving V Lipstadt defamation trial. In short, historian Deborah Lipstadt called pop-lit history author David Irving a holocaust denier in her book based on what Irving said in his published works. Irving sued Lipstadt for defamation and used postmodern ideology as a defence. 'There are no objective truths in history, I have a narrative, Dr Lipstadt has hers, we conflict but neither are wrong.' He was then met with an absolute tour de force of historians who demonstrated the methods of history, how we corroborate sources and prove facts within the limits of our sources. This has been termed 'qualified objectivity'. The court ruled that historical methods could establish knowledge about the past. In this sense, traditional modernism won. I'd like to finish by pointing out that postmodernism also expanded what historians considered worthwhile to study. Where before history was either political, economic,military, or personal (so-called 'great man' history) the debate soon moved on to look at what else there was to talk about. Women's history, social history, affect history, global history, religious history - all these disciplines got their start because postmodernism demanded that history take on a wider scope to get a fuller image (or reconstruction) of what the past was like. What was deemed a valid source was also expanded, where before we relied on written survivals and archaeology the map was now open. Architecture, oral tradition, period novels, artwork, political cartoons. Admittedly postmodernism also creates a blurred line between primary and secondary sources but i wont get into that right now. Finally, postmodernism also demanded that we revise what we've said in the past, re-read our sources and look at them more sceptically - this is revisionism. Many take revisionism to mean a 're-writing' of history in an Orwellian sense but more accurately it's a belief that we shouldn't take one book, written 130 years ago, as the be all end all of historical fact on a topic. The sources that that historian used should be re-read more critically, if more sources have been uncovered they should be included, and if we find that that historians conclusions were wrong then we should write corrections. In summary, postmodernism is like a bomb that blows up conventional wisdom. It's a philosophy based on hyper scepticism and atomising knowledge. It takes a while but it usually finds a settled place in academic communities. Some of its tenants have been absorbed in historical methods, some have been legally disproved -something that doesn't happen often in ANY academic discipline. It's usually not easy to come on one side or the other when talking about something as nebulous as postmodernism. It's a multifaceted concept with some good ideas and some bad. The key point though is that it was exactly what history needed at the time to research more varied topics, ask new questions and justify its own existence.
Hi Skeptic! Love the channel and good job on the content. You seem to really do your research. Based on my education and experience, (I have a BA in Political Science and an MBA, both from good public universities.) the following is how i learned it and how i apply it. The difference between Modernism and Postmodernism breaks down to exactly what you alluded to, cause and effect. The difference is that in Modernism, the past and the meaning we assign to it are treated as constants. This has been a fantastic school of thought for a long time but lends itself to paradoxes in certain circumstances. Shroedingers cat is a good example. A modernist would basically say that cat is alive AND dead simultaneously. This sounds good except we cannot extrapolate further without certainty. We cannot decide whether or not to bring the cat food or bury it. And from an economic perspective doing both leads to inefficiency. Postmodernism is not so much a response ( many people say it is but it drastically oversimplifying the concept) as it is an alternative solution. What a postmodernist would say is that we know whether or not to feed tor bury the cat based on our own experiences with the cat. Postmodernism does not claim to have the correct answer to whether or not to feed the cat, but instead postulates that the state of the cat can be inferred based a combination emotional and rational judgement. The problem with postmodernism is that while it is highly deductive, it is not very inductive. A postmodernist may say something like “i feel like its a lucky cat, so i should bring it food”. Now postmodernism does not claim you will be right, only that you now have a process for going further than modernism. Thats one of the reasons we called it postmodernism. I am an options trader and i use postmodern thought in certain probability models, so it does have value. The problem lies when people try to make Postmodernism an inductive model, which it is not. Taking the cat example, its impossible to create a generalized law about whether or not to feed the cat if everyone found their cat in shroedingers box, postmodernism would say each and every person would need to use their own system of beliefs, values, and rational thought to determine whether or not to feed the cat. This is why modernism and and postmodernism coexist from a political and financial standpoint. This is how i learned it in school and thought id share. Unfortunately like many schools of thought, it changes depending on what craft you practice. For an art student, its a style. For historians, its a period more defined by skepticism. It has many practical effects in business and finance. ( a company like amazon made no sense from a modernist standpoint) modernist economics taught that things Porters five forces model would predict amazons failure. A postmodern approach ( analysizing the Free cash flow model) would have predicted this success early on. I have drastically oversimplified these concepts in the interest of brevity, even as long as this text wall is it could go one for days. Just figured id share my perspective. Thanks for the videos! I appreciate the work that goes into making these.
You misrepresent what "modernists", aka skeptics, would think about the Shroedingers cat thought experiment. In reality they would assume that the cat is neither alive nor dead because you can't verify either until you opened the box.
Sin thanks for the reply. Modernists are not skeptics and the two are deal with entirely dofferent realms of knowledge. Modernity is has to do with efficiency whereas skepticism is more dealing with how we acquire knowledge the in the first place. Also, if you open the box, its no long schroedingers cat as it loses the metaphor to quantum phenomena entirely. Modern and postmodernism are two ends of one spectrum. Skepticism is a broad term for a wide branch of epistemology. There are postmodern as well as modern skeptics as well as skeptics who are neither. Best
@@nicholastarzia5863 modernists are skeptics my dude. Skepticism exists because skeptics understand that ones own personal understanding isn't efficient enough to accurately do experiments. They use their peers to constantly evolve their thinking when exploring new ideas, and consistently change what they think based on data.
I'm afraid you blew it, Skeptic. Yes, postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, but modernism isn't what you think it is. The Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not "Modernism." The Enlightenment and the Renaissance brought with them some horrors, like the French revolution and the bloody overthrow of kings. Modernism was a reaction to the of horror to World War I. Modernism rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking. Think of modern art, Andy Warhol, Picasso... Think of the stream-of-consciousness novel, atonal music, abstract art, etc... That was modernism -- an attempt to break with past traditions and create new ones.
News to many of us. That's because you say so? My goodness, too many self-appointed intellectuals nowadays. I think it was better when the Pope and a few sages interpreted whatever needed interpretation and everyone else minded their own functional business. You, guys, are tiring.
@@roses6564 yeah why dont everyone just plant some diseased potatos and drop dead young in pig shit like the good ol' days, right?....... get outta here
We, the audience, will not forget your recent fuck ups as they are pointed out by Logicked or hbomberguy. And we will not be satisfied until you finally address their videos and admit your short comings. Trying to sit it out will not work.
Yeah, L0LWTF1337 was made Audience Spokesperson for the Skeptic audience at the last meeting on Tuesday, WHICH YOU MISSED! Next time, bother to show up and you won't be so out-of-touch.
Cause unlike you hypocrites that claim that they are for dialogue and differing ideas, I actually listen to both sides. At least as long as they stay close to the facts which the Anti-sjw side drifts away from each day.
As a skeptic you should have a lot of post-modernist views. You shouldn't question everything all the time, but the heart of post-modernism is skepticism.
I'm actually really happy you explained this, it really shines a light on all of this. And while we may never understand them, knowing that they think on a different spectrum means that perhaps at some point when we begin to understand them we can finally explain things to them.
The issue is, he explained it *wrong.* Just, like, catastrophically wrong. People with even a 101-level understanding of Postmodernism are facepalming at him claiming things like "patriarchy" and "cultural appropriation" are postmodernist ideas. It sounds like a noxious mixture of Stephen Hicks' and Jordan Peterson's terminally wrong takes on Postmodernism. Postmodernism is a tough subject, but I suggest you check out CCK Philosophy or Tom Nicholas, among others, if you want to *actually* understand it.
Green Acorn It isn't possible for post-modernists, nihilists, and anybody with a disdain for an earthly authority can ask this question in the certainly they will win the argument: "who is this mortal philosopher to claim these 'truths' and upon what station?" This problem is answered with God because He is neither proven or disproven scientifically. God not only is the creator of all things, according to the Theology, but is also the God who led the Jews out of Egypt and to Mount Sinai for Moses to receive the Ten Commandments. It is one thing for a God to claim that He is the creator of the world but written in the First Commandment, God led the Jews out of Egypt and the house of bondage; which shows that He wants His creation to be free thus He cares about his creation. So if you follow a philosophical descendant from the Ten Commandments such as Judaism or Christianity then it is written into the theology that God has serious authority for you are in His debt because by His will you are free. Repayment of that debt comes through treating your fellow man ethically as asserted in the 10 Commandments at the very least. Rejection of the authority of God increases the likelihood that he will flood the world as in the story of Noah or that you will be enslaved to immorality or to another person for the absence of the fear of God lies no wisdom. It is unwise to reject God and His word because that is to dispel the only true source of morality and human rights. You only need to see what resulted from the nihilism and totalitarianism of 20th century Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia plus Maoist China to see that humans are not very good at creating an ideology that doesn't result in the death of more than 100 million people; to see that a determined horrible individual soon leads to a people without God and their liberty. The 20th century was a flood of blood and that was because enough individuals arrogantly thought they were beyond God's lecturing and could "think for their selves". They ended up adopting a false God; beit socialism, Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and nowadays intersectional social justice or alt-right philosophy. The objective truth is self-evident in that God decides it, not humanity. Apologies for the long essay. It's quite a difficult thing to articulate and I wanted to do my best to give the question a darn good go, and present as much as what I've got a handle on so far.
Speaking as a student in logic: modal logic can do no such thing. In fact, no type of logic that is used anywhere could prove such a thing. The flat earth is an empirical, or synthetic claim: a claim about the abstract world. Logic can only prove analytic claims: claims about how concepts relate to one another. Only if you assumed certain premises could you prove such a thing. Even then I can guarantee you that with reasonable premises, modal logic could not prove such a thing.
@@uselessspectator9427 It's a master's degree. It might not be exactly what you think, though. A lot of it is a very rigorous mathematical analysis of formal (logical) languages and their models, although there are also a number of classes on the more philosophical and linguistic aspects.
The Enlightenment era ideas were NOT like the Red Pill of those days, because the Red Pill is Right wing, and the Enlightenment era ideals and thinkers were Left wing.
I don’t get why people come in to make comments like this. You may very well be correct, and I’d be interested to know what you think is missing, or misleading, here. Would you like to add anything?
You refer to them "speaking two different languages." Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to this as Sprachspiele, or "Language Games," with the notion that different disciplines use terminology differently (they're using the same game pieces, but playing by different rules), and this leads to no little confusion and frustration. You can read about Wittgenstein's views on this in _Über Gewißheit,_ or in English translation in _On Certainty._ It's a brief text, but a very important one.
That's a very limited interpretation of Sprachspiele I think. In all honesty, everything written about in Philosophischen Untersuchungen (I'll fuck up the spelling, srry)is very postmodernist.
_Philosophische Untersuchungen._ Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the leading lights in Analytic Philosophy, which deals with Logic; while some Postmodernists have made use of some of his concepts, I cannot imagine anyone who knows his work suggesting that he himself was postmodernist or would have supported Postmodernism.
Early Wittgenstein, maybe. Though I cannot for the life of me imagine anyone suggesting he was in agreement with the Analytical thinkers of his time. He hated the positivist interpretations of his work. His fideism is straight up existentialist. His logical solipsism (from the TLP) is used all the time to demonstrate the flaws of modernist thought.
No, later Wittgenstein. Logical Positivism was, as Plantinga accurately demonstrated, "self-referentially incoherent," so I cannot fault Wittgenstein for hating their interpretations of his work. Analytic Philosophy is much broader than Logical Positivism. You also have, for example, the Logical Atomists, and a continuing evolution up through Quine, after whom the distinctions between Analytic and Speculative Philosophy were generally not emphasized so much. You had Analytic Philosophy before Frege and Moore, too, and you still have Speculative Philosophy after Wittgenstein and Quine. The division into Analytic and Speculative is artificial and, imo, rather pretentious. The _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ is from Wittgenstein's early period, and as I stated previously, while some Postmodernists have made use of some of his concepts, that does not mean that he would have agreed with them.
Wait, you think later Wittgenstein is less postmodernist than early Wittgenstein? Really. Honestly I can't think of a philosopher from his time period that more embodied postmodernist thought than Wittgenstein, even the early existentialists. And he wasn't a Logical Atomist either, so what's the point of that. To return to the original point: I think you're really quitting the fideistic/existentialist and yes, postmodernist implications of Sprachspiele short. A vital point related to Sprachspiele is that Wittgenstein, though I cannot remember the quote exactly, so I'll paraphrase, argued it's meaningless to complain about the rules of any given language game, or to even claim there's such things as overarching, transcendent rules.
Not at all, it doesn't require post modernist thinking for people to realize that mutual assured destruction is a very bad thing to have happen and to avoid it. In fact post modern thought would be far more likely to allow said destruction.
Pre-war Fallout isn't just about mutually assured destruction. American exceptionalism was on ridicoulus levels before the bombs dropped and scientific progress was seen as more important than everything else, especially human lives (see Vault-tec, the enclave, the experiments on the FEV and other disgusting experiments). We learn through the terminals that questioning the authorities was a cardinal sin and most of the population behaved and obeyed blindly. So yeah, I would argue that the Fallout pre-war america had a severe lack of a postmodernist perspective. Like I said, there was far more stuff wrong with that world even before the bombs dropped.
The reason why privelege is difficult to understand, is very simple; *it does not exist.* The false concept of privelege, is the means by which those who *do* want to maintain the supremacy or chauvanism of one particular group, (usually the opposite group(s) to the one which has historically been dominant) attempt to subvert the thinking of people within the same movement, who genuinely *do* want parity or equality between individuals and groups. The single biggest mistake that people make where social justice is concerned, is assuming that social justice has fundamentally benevolent intentions. It does *not.* The goal of social justice is not to produce anything desirable or positive. The goal of social justice is exclusively to subvert and destroy. They come up with various means of masking that fact, but it's all a lie.
It seems intellectually dishonest to me to simply claim that postmodernist arguments are all per definition not debatable with a classical scientific approach. The list of subjects you rattle down starting with 8:30 is not arcane and exclusive to postmodernist approaches, they are all very much researchable - even if that is not especially easy in some cases. We can do different studies to find out whether for example toxic masculity is something that should be taken more into consideration. Actually, in this case we just have to take notice of what happens to society now that many of what has been identified as causes for toxic masculitiy by "postmedernists" slowly are eroded away in some places (less gendered toys, growing acceptance of masculine figures in media who are mostly defined by macho behavior etc). Same with things like rape culture. Do more in-depth surveys and studies to see where rape is happening, who commits it and see what the causes of it are. Question rapist in extensive discussions to find out what experiences drove them to their actions etc. Other concepts like cultural appropriation require respectful discourse with minorities and indigenous people to gain more insight into their experience. It requires critical research about the slow changes in cultural perception to find out how casual depiction of holy and important garments, rituals etc in popular media shapes the image of these cultures. Nevertheless, thinking about these issues and concluding certain facts from personal experience and discussions with affected people is not an unscientific approach. And this is exactly how social sciences arrived at these concepts and the theories behind them (which you didn't even mention). You also presented the whole issue in manipulative ways. On the one hand, you attack students and activists for abandoning the principles of scientific method and rational thought (here I agree with you), but fail to point out that the core concepts you critisize were developed with EXACTLY THESE METHODS. You lump dissenting rebelious voices who in your mind represent the problems with postmoderninst into one group with actual scientists without showing that they do not follow the same thought processes and do not base their conclusions on the same logic (or lack thereof). It seems to me that you take the easy way out, painting "Postmodernism" as the boogey man and just lump all ideas from recent (and not quite so recent) social science research into one big pile of "irrational" bullshit. That way, they are easy to attack by using some misguided activists as a staw man to paint all progressives who support certain points of view with one broad "SJW" brush. I am wondering if you are willingly trying to mislead your audience or if you are simply a victim of your own confirmation bias as humans are so prone succumbing to. This is something I noticed in your latest batch of videos - you have latched onto the idea of "SJW" ideas being at their core non-scientific and ideologally driven per definition and just run with it, without ever pausing to research your assumtion and check with all available sources. The "living in their own world" claim you throw at postmodernists seems to be becoming more and more applicable to the community of self-labeled rationals on youtube. I notice less and less discussion of scientific discourse, and more and more baseless blame and ridicule. There are countless studies done on most of the subjects you critisize and I hope you will do a video in the future that adresses them and to reflect upon why you have omitted them from the discussion.
"Nevertheless, thinking about these issues and concluding certain facts from personal experience and discussions with affected people is not an unscientific approach." This is a *completely* unscientific approach. Statistical analysis of large groups of people are scientific. The individual opinions of a person's subjective experience is anecdotal, and is not permissible in any science (including most social sciences). You cannot do a replication study on a sample of one. "This is something I noticed in your latest batch of videos - you have latched onto the idea of "SJW" ideas being at their core non-scientific and ideologally driven per definition and just run with it, without ever pausing to research your assumtion and check with all available sources." SJW ideas *are* unscientific. Explicitly so. Name one that isn't, clearly define it, then demonstrate the studies and evidence which have confirmed it, and the independent research that has verified it. Good luck. "There are countless studies done on most of the subjects you critisize and I hope you will do a video in the future that adresses them and to reflect upon why you have omitted them from the discussion." There are no studies done on this sort thing. There are interpretations of statistical data to fit a specific narrative. You cannot study "patriarchy" without an exclusionary narrative that rejects facts that do not fit said narrative. If you did, the entire concept would collapse in a flaming pile of evidence.
But it's not real postmodernism Jacquesne! Educate yourself on what true femin- I mean true postmodernism is! Serious now: These people defending postmodernism are like feminists defend feminism. Kinda sad really.
It's the motte-and-bailey argument...take an uncontroversial or impossible to argue against definition (feminism/postmodernism have too many definitions to argue against!) when defending it (motte), but use the definition you want ('x' person is sexist because feminism, 'y' person is an oppressor because postmodernism) at all other times (bailey). If you accepted the motte argument, nobody could even say that feminism is different in any way than postmodernism, because the definition is basically "whatever I want it to mean".
why aren't the postmodernist concepts also called into question through the lense of postmodernism, if it means to call into question of everything that came before?
Thank you for the amazing video. I'm starting to get interested in post-postmodernism, and I wonder if it actually have groundings in philosophy or just in literature. It would be interesting to see a video about it.
I don't think questioning is necessarily bad, but when you let go of things like logic and reason, you're letting go of the process by which you ANSWER those questions. In a vacuum of logic, you're left with raw emotion and group think to define what is right and wrong. Which leads us to the emotionally charged regressive social justice movement.
This isn't something to explain as much as to have a conversation abut. How do you view our future in a world of science? Like: The inevitability of robots consuming all the free jobs. Recent concepts for faster than light travel. Unlimited super precise gene editing with CRISPR-Cas9 and the debate on is it "moral" to have a person who is born superior and a lesser person born naturally. Do you think an AI would threaten humanity or help us with exponential growth in research? Do you think all of existence is a simulation? Will Greece join Russia in a new USSR because of Russia offering to pay off their debts and then sum. Should a colony on mars be a new country, a colony of the country who sent it or a neutral colony of earth? What era of music do you like the most and what does ShoeOnHead like? Should we transform mars before we try colonize it? and so on.
The problem with postmodernism in academia isn't necessarily deconstructionism as such, it is that only specific (western, individualist) ideas are deconstructed and abandoned. The primary premises of Marxism (collectivism, the productive don't create wealth but steal it) are never questioned or deconstructed. The abandonment of principles does not leave a vacuum of principles, it simply means the speaker does not even realize what principles she may operate on. Postmodernism, when adopted as a primary philosophy, leaves one enslaved to bias, dogma, and emotional whim.
Who people think is an example of postmodernism personified: Kat Blaque Who is actually postmodernism personified: The Amazing Atheist Postmodernism doesn't mean what you think it means. JBP uses it in this really strange way and it's caused the entire skeptic community to wholly misunderstand the movement. Here are a few postmodern writers who you may have heard of: William S Burroughs (Naked Lunch, Junky), Alan Ginsberg, Charles Bukowski, Bret Easton Ellis (the guy who wrote American Psycho). Memes are an example of postmodernism, Family Guy and Breaking Bad are examples of postmodernism...postmodernism is... not that serious. Being "not that serious" is postmodern. Modernists were trying to build a utopia, postmodernists were doing it for the lulz. Postmodernism is not the boogeyman you think it is, the boogeyman you are thinking of is some branch of critical theory. Now I'm just going to wait here while this comment is buried.
When people knock post modernism they are often talking about Marcuse and all the Frankfurt school Marxists intent on destroying western civilization. SJWs are pretty much quoting old Marcuse garbage.
Skeptic explains, more like skeptic mANSPLAINS
best comment yet👌
Postmodernism: When you kill everything that makes up Western Civilization and piece it back together as a shambling nihilistic Frankenstein's monster to terrorize the populace.
Oh no mansplaining I'm going to pass out (btw i was being sarcastic)
*profile picture*
"Mansplaining" is associated with speaking the truth, so I'm okay with this.
The postmodernist says "there is no such thing as truth!" and the rationalist responds: "Is that true?"
This is the fundamental contradiction that lies at the heart of postmodernist thought: Postmodernists want to assert that no knowledge framework is superior to any other, and therefore that any meaning we choose can be derived from the world (the central idea behind deconstructionism), but at the same time, claiming that there is no absolute truth, is by necessity, a claim which trumps all knowledge frameworks, so paradoxically, the claim "there is no objective truth", IS the objective truth, by their own reasoning!
To obscure this inherent instability at the heart of their philosophy, the postmodernists intentionally try to make their fields as jargon-heavy and impenetrable as possible. Most postmodernist papers are complete fucking gibberish!
Frankly, they know they're talking shit, and go to great lengths to obscure it.
*"All facts are just opinion."*
*"Is that a fact?"*
If *"Yes"* , the statement is refuted, as the original speaker acknowledges the existence of fact.
If *"No"* , one is not required to pay attention to the original speaker because they're not making a truth claim.
Jesus christ, where do I even start.
@@MiloMay depends on where you're going, I suppose...
@@totovader Postmodernism is not the view that their is no truth and that every theory is as good as any other theory. No Major Postmodernist or really even any Academic ever has held that view. Relativism is a concept used in Postmodernism, but in a descriptive manner I.e. Describing how people's view of the world is relative to certain cultural factors not in a Prescriptive manner I.e. telling people that there is no such thing as truth. Most Postmoder ists don't even offer an epistemology (theory of knowledge) and one's that do usually offer a practical account of knowledge I.e. what's true is what works.
Can you explain why America's political terms are all ass backwards? Liberal in America means what conservative means in Europe, libertarian in America means what liberal means in Europe, and in Europe libertarian means communist, while in America socialism means what social democracy means in Europe.
Why is all of this?
Not really
I'm french but I can traduce for europe I think:
US - Europe
Conservative - Traditional christian far-right
Liberal - Conservative/Neoliberal
Neo/ordo liberal - Neo/ordo liberal (I know no one speaks of ordo liberalism but it comes in the french left wing youtube saying the EU isn't neo but ordo liberal, I'm not sure myself and I think it's the same in the us but not sure eigher)
Far right - Far right (the populist one: Trump, Le Pen, UKIP, Wilders ect...)
Classical Liberal - ... (doesn't exist, the few follow american culture)
Libertarian - ... (doesn't exist, the few follow american culture)
Libertarian socialist - Left-wing anarchist (collectivist, against power: an-com, an-syndicalist, an-"ecologism" and tons of subkind)
Anarchist - Right wing anarchist (individualists, only against state: egoists, an-caps)
Communist - Communist
Mechaghostman2 The overton window. US ideology went so far right that everything to us in other western nations is very far left
would love to her that from someone a Bit mor sophisticated like sceptic (an Yes i just said that the man in armour, who happen to Talk to 2 little angels is sophisticated )
Mechaghostman2 Libertarian is by no means communist in Europe
Mechaghostman2 I can't speak for Europe here but from The UK it is nigh on impossible to map the ideologies onto one another along party lines. For example one of the comments here says UKIP is far right. Mostly not really by manifesto they are closer to libertarian in that they reject big government. Tbh. As far as UK politics goes left and right are out dated concepts
Original full title:
**What is Postmondernism? Seriously, I have no fucking idea**
Title: No, you're wrong
Explain why Shitposting is such a widespread form of communication among the technologically literate
People got sick of trying to seriously convey messages and realized that most people only respond to humor so we communicate sarcastically with memes for human connection to help soothe the existential dread
This is a question for Armored Skeptic: I'm interested in his take on shitposting and the internet culture surrounding it, thank you.
I did my degree in Post-Moderism. You give a fairly good explanation to begin with but make a few basic errors. One is you lump logic and reason and empiricism together throughout the video, whereas in Modernism logic and reason not kindred with empiricism or even allied, they are opposing views. Making this distinction is especially prevalent because Post-Modernism tends to reject logic and reason and accepts empiricism without question. Secondly you make the common mistake of viewing Post-Modernism as an ideology rather than a description. A person with the flu can be described as having the flu by a doctor, but the person with the flu can't call themselves a fluist. Post Modernism is an observation and reporting of what is happening in the world not an ideology to follow.
From about 7:35 your case study is an error. You say humanities departments have adopted their own version of reason abandoning empiricism. This is perfectly correct. However this is not an example of a Post-Modernist ideology, it's more an example of Modernist Rationalism. Yes some people people mistakenly call it Post-Modernism, but it's the exact opposite of Post-Modernism which is a rejection of any truth in reason. Describing what these people are doing as Post-Modernism is about as accurate as saying Cultural Marxism is an example of Marxism.
You then give a list of abstract SJW words and then say they are Post-Modernist words and can only be proven through the lens of Post-Modernism. This again is quite incorrect, once again more examples of Rationalism. Post-Modernism can prove nothing, it denies all abstract truths.
In summery. Post-Modernism is a form of extreme scepticism. So extreme, sceptics reject it for being too sceptical (which is kind of ironic). It looks at the world and gives a description of the present, saying people are losing faith with western modernity and beginning to reject it replace conventional truths and values which ones they have made up themselves. It is not condoning this, or advocating any of these new made up values. Post modernism also as a system of scepticism pointing out these new made up values and truths are of no more or less validity than the ones they are replace, everything is subjective. In each generation new values and ideologies replace the old, claiming they are true and previous wrong.
Post-Modernism analyses, then describes and predicts what Humanities Departments, Flat Earthers, SJW's, the Alt Right, New Atheists, rampant consumerism and so on are doing, it not the ideology of any of them. It's the Doctor examining them, and them the flu diagnoses.
Uh-oh you're starting to sound like a source... Skeptic doesn't do that
thank you, i also tought that the video was good up to 7:35! And it just turned pure ideological and nonsensical afterwards even contradicting what himself was saying before...
He seems to think modernism is postmodernism, he has the two completely confused. Describing modernism and calling it post modernism. What he calls modernism seems to be something he made up in his head........ Ironically he's actually a symptom of postmodernism himself, making up his own subjective reality.
vevmo.com/sites/default/files/Oh-the-Irony.jpg kkkk u r right!
Regardless of Sceptic's argument, Post-Modernism is a cancerous ideology (Definition of “Ideology” = “a set of BELIEFS, values, and OPINIONS that shapes the way a person or a group such as a social class THINKS, acts, and UNDERSTANDS THE WORLD”)
Not only is that “my truth”, so it’s AT LEAST as valid as “any other truth”, Post-Modernism is also empirically bad.
Try teaching AI to make sense of the world through a Post-Modernist lens - good luck! Let me know how that works out for you and whether it merits the “I” in AI - I promise you it won’t.
You can take that promise to the bank, because it’s as true now as it would be if it was proven scientifically - according to Post-Modernist theory.
Judging by the comments, only about half of the people here have heard of this concept before. Postmodernism does not simply reject logic. It critiques logic as a symptom of positivism and is skeptical of its objectivity (or objectivity of any kind) and its universal applicability. It acknowledges the existence of things that we take for granted but explains them from a different perspective. Sure the Age of Enlightenment is good and everything, but the philosophies that emerged from it are crude and overtly optimistic at times. Also, the word "post" when talking about disciplines or schools of thought is used to indicate a contribution to something that came before it and not an outright rejection of it. It builds on modernism by critiquing and replacing certain parts of it.
The problem I have with postmodernism is that following its own principles you have to question postmodernism itself. It basically invalidades its own perspective.
OberstSkeptic, No! You are confusing Pyrrhotic skepticism with postmodernism.
Can we all agree that all these 'movements' are just philosophers jerking each other off, and that we're safer if we watch from a distance instead of mindlessly embracing any of it?
OberstSkeptic, The problem with empiricism is that following it's own principles you have to reject empiricism itself. It basically invalidates itself.
Empiricism follows physical and observable evidence, postmodernism does not. Cannot compare the two. Try again.
What if butts had boobs?
Pedro Colmenares but the real question, does each cheek have one breast or two?
woke
WHAT IF BOOBS HAD EYES?
we would be aroused everytime we sat also maybe they would make underwear with bras
"What is Postmodernism?" I honestly couldn't tell you if you put a gun to my head.
Simple: post modernism says everything, including reality, is subjective (it's not). Example: a man *saying* he's a woman now means he is because his words say so and also HE believes everyone around him HAS TO believe that he is a woman (because reality is subjective...when it's not). Post modernism creates ideological cults of absolute nonsense. It's a brain virus.
@@swesleyc7 you're fucking stupid and transphobic
@@zaphirael5303 that's just your opinion
@@GnosticLucifer he's transphobic, fuck off
@@zaphirael5303
That’s just like your opinion, man.
How to respeck wahmen?
9Mystere9 it took me like 10 seconds to tell what you wrote
AGuyNamedJacob that's beautiful
pho bettuh or pho wurst?
AGuyNamedJacob It's a reference to Pewdiepie
Is that a Pewdiepie reference or am I feeling nostalgic?
Is mayonaise an instrument?
yes
Horse radish is not an instrument either.
Mayonnaise can potentially be an instrument, depending on the definition you use, and how you use the mayonnaise.
Well technically you could make sploosh sounds using mayonnaise and you could make"music" using those sounds. So it would be a musical instrument? I'd imagine the music would kinda suck though.
Mayones guitars are
Explain how England became my city
A bit of Cocaine was probably in there
England isnt a city. Its a country in a wonderful place called europe. Even though they might have left the EU. Theryre still one of the most powerfull contries in the World. Did you know that they almost owned the entire World at one time! Its insane how they were able to become a World superpower Even though theyre so small. Now back to youre question England isnt a city its a town in mid London
could you explain the difference between Libertarianism and Anarcho Capitalism?
Daniel Cole you can't have anarchy because people naturally make rules and governments
Plz do
Anarcho capitalism is purely the Non-Aggression Principal in action. Libertarianism is the non-aggression principal being mostly enforced but there is still government, therefore still taxes, but the government is "limited government"
We really should limit government as much as possible, it makes sense. Government is a weapon, and we should only unleash it on those who initiate violence or initiate threats of violence.
OK anarcho-capitalism is a belief of a branch of libertarians. It's the belief that government should not interfere in the free market AT ALL. See the teachings of Adam Smith if you want to understand more. Anarcho-capitalism has nothing to do with true anarchy.
A postmodernist is just somebody who hasn't saved his father from the underworld. And that's that.
ImperfectWeapons BUCKO BRIGADE! FALL IN!
Kaiser Mertz And I thought about that A LOT.
And that's *no joke man*
I'm noot doin it
Which level of analysis should I report in?
Post-Modernism as a concept is fine. The problem is: nobody is using it correctly. They’re just destroying things and not reassembling it to understand it, hence: not truly utilizing Post-modernism.
explain why my cat keeps taking a shit on the neighbors lawn
your cat is attempting to annex your neighbor's lawn
Your cat likes you enough to not take shits on your lawn
Mormon Jesus it is a simple question to get an answer to and the answer is trump
Russian Hacking.
Mormon Jesus the patriarchy
Is sociology a real science?
The Ledge wat is siense
Its a social science but it is not part of any STEM field.
Gato Villano exactly just like political science.
Apparently it's science enough to make it a required class in the high school I went to.
Nuance Is Good it's still a science it's study more of society just like political science hence it's called a social sciences.
only a sith deals in absolutes
That sounded like an absolute statement. hmm.
@@rebekah293 What if we're reflecting on an ideology that is absolute? If an ideology clearly states that "if you're not with us, you're against us", then it's correct to say that this ideology deals in absolutes. Nothing is wrong with absolutism as long as it's about objective provable, observable facts.
@@rebekah293 he could be a sith
Star Wars is Woke propaganda.
1:35 "as communication became easier for the average people" I thought that was a pic of a guillotine hahaha
Postmodernism questions everything, except Islam.
***** Postmodernism questions everything, except Islam and feminism :-).
Well, that's because Republicans define socialism as anything they don't like. The true meaning is "ensuring the social welfare of all people", and I think that's how the left uses it, but the right just uses it as a general expression of condemnation.
ghenulo probably because it is not the government's job to ensure the social welfare of all people. that would require tyrrany.
@Dopamine Media That's rather ironic, given that in a true democracy, the government IS all people...
It's a good thing we are a constitutional republic. Democracies are mob rule.
Explain quantam mechanics
Please shoot me in the fucking face
😂😂😂😂 you're the best Greg
correct
Everything gets FUCKING WEIRD once you go down to the subatomic level. That's all you need to know.
Well, Noah, when a Quark and a Leptop love each other very much, God rolls some dice and then the whole universe is made.
There you go, hope that helps.
>be a skeptic
>question everything and look for the true value of the things
>look at postmodernism
>realize it's about questioning everything and looking for the inherent value and logic behind all things
>condemn it for doing it
Say what?
There is “questioning” everything, and then there is denying/rejecting everything. Its less of an openminded perspective as it’s often dogmatic and fanatical.
Not Sean Damn you’re just wrong
Ryan Miller What an amazing argument!
Actually no because postmodernism doesn't believe in any inherent value/logic
@@siloplaysgames You are asserting a good and bad that you are refusing to question. That is a presupposion.
Flat earth (REAL!!!!) 2016 part 2 when?!?!?!
Oh yeeeaah.
You should do a full series on postmodernism; answering the questions it raises on metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and science. The skeptic community needs to attack postmodernism by the bottom-up, and not the top-down.
Post Modernists don't have anything coherent to say about metaphysics, epistemology, logic or science. So it would be a very short Q&A session. You need to think of Post Modernism as a kind of *fashion*.
Just because they don't have anything coherent to say, inasmuch as they are deconstructionists and not constructionists, doesn't mean it hasn't become an academic cancer. The problems they think exist within modern values need to be challenged; we need to defend modernism at its very foundation.
Will Nitschke but postmodernism has become a major part of western society. Even if most of it is fluff, learning about it would be exceedingly useful. How can you fight or even coexist with people that are that alien to your ideas? We must understand to be right and to explain why we are right!
You have no idea what you're talking about. Philosophy didn't just create postmodernism out of thin air. It's the result of thousands of years of study in epistemology, logic & metaphysics. Such an attack would be akin to a toddler trying to teach an evolutionairy biologist about creation.
Jordan Peterson already does this, and far more expertly than you could reasonably expect of Greg. Not hating on Greg or anything, just that J Peterson is far more experienced in this area.
7:15 "Post-modernism questions traditions and conventions" ... but isn't this the definition of Modernism
Every new movement questions the assumptions of the previous ones. This dipshit (Armourd Skunkdip) doesn't get it at all.
Yes, the traditions and conventions of pre-modernism. Post-modernism questions mental sanity.
Trditions and conventions of the Modernism
What I get from this is postmodernism is kind of like the new enlightenment era, in the respect that we're just questioning everything because we've seen faults in the current way of doing things
Yes but it is a problem when your traditions and conventions have established itself on science, reasoning and logic.
Reason and logic did NOT START WITH THE ENLIGHTENMENT!!! #Aristotle #Euclid
I think he ment it got more widespread during the Enlightenment. Having more than the upper class have people with logic, or education for that matter (in terms of ideas and even literacy).
Yep. The reason the Catholic church fell apart and a bunch of different "protestant" denominations formed was in part because of this. Once the Bible became readily available in the common language, the commoners who read it suddenly realized all the lies that the church was promoting, as before the Catholic church required all Bibles to be written in Latin and said that only priests could intemperate scripture. (God forbit anyone read it in a language that the Bible was ACTUALLY written in... Like Greek or Hebrew... Muslim leaders do the same thing to control their people, forcing them to read their scripture only in Arabic and rejecting any translations, thus keeping their followers ignorant of the actual text, but at least the Quran actually WAS written in Arabic!) Since the masses were mostly illiterate, and even those who could read couldn't read Latin, the Pope and the Church could say ANYTHING and have the public accept it. Once people could easily read the Bible for themselves, the Church's power began to crumble. That's also a big reason for the rise of the concept of separation of church and state. They knew what a corrupt central religious authority could do, and knew the persecution such an organisation was capable of.
Yet the monasteries preserved many of the works of the Ancients which acted as inspiration for the Enlightenment.
True, the Church was pretty much the only real source of developments in the Middle Ages but that was exactly the problem. Instead of sharing that knowledge and works with the world and examine different views on it from scientific perspective they hid it so that "simple people" wouldn't have doubts about the whole thing. Also they liked killing people trying to learn on their own by claiming they are dealing with Satan. So while I agree with your point, I do think that over all Church is responsible for trying to stop scientific progress by all means.
You are correct here.
However.
The Enlightenment is often considered by many as not a bringer of new, but a bringer of the past. Works such as Plato and Aristotle were found by many figures in the Enlightenment; some newly translated. This lead them to be inspired by their works and their beliefs in logic, and the individual, which lead to the popularity of humanism during the movement by those such as Rousseau and Da Vinci, to name a few. The fairly new printing press and its culture additionally supported the popularity of these modernist ideals.
Thus, whilst The Enlightenment didn't "create" reason or logic, it was the largest and most influential movement in the modern era that popularised it.
What do you think of libertarians?
Finnylicious
Well if we have public roads then maybe we should have drivers licenses (although I'm skeptical) but if we have private roads then maybe the market mechanisms would figure out some other solution.
Libertarians believe in freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom to defend yourself, the pursuit of happiness. They believe in the free market and are responsible for the biggest period of wealth in america.
The funding fathers of america were all libertarians. They did all they could to create a constitution that would defend everyones natural rights. Personally, my favourite is Thomas Jefferson, best president EVER, hands down.
Libertarians are just rich liberals who don't want to pay their taxes.
Sexual Assault Rifle Yes it's the radical idea that putting cement down on flat Earth is not so fucking complicated that only Bernie Sanders can do it.
B4TT3RY Even if that were true it would be a pointless ad hominem.
In this video, Armoured Skeptic argues against skepticism.
skepticism is based on rational thought.
That would make this performance art, wouldn't it?
@@thedarkmaster4747 Not necessarily.
@@thedarkmaster4747 No it's not... scepticism is a denial of the certainty of knowledge. It's decidedly anti-rationalist (though not necessarily empiricist).
Guess what's also anti-rationalist? Experimental science. Rationalists told you the humors were a thing... empiricists like Pasteur introduced you to the world of microbiological contaminants.
Learn basic fucking philosophy, people.
@@adelahogarth2761 What the fuck? Skepticism is far from empiricist what the hell are you talking about? How can you assert skepticism is empiricist without questioning whether or not your sense perception can be trusted? Skepticism is neither rational nor empirical. It is also not a denial of certainty of knowledge it is the questioning of it. It is very simply the question. The methodology of the answer is not a part of skepticism.
I don't think it's intellectually honest to argue that post-modernism is basically wrong without actually looking at post-modern theory in a direct way (Discipline and Punish etc.).
postmodernism, more like postmortem
@LegoGuy87 Are you aware of the ship of Theseus problem?
Postmodernism brought us Metal Gear Solid 2. I rest my case.
av4d and Half Life 2 ... but still no HL3
"That's your narrative!" LOL.
I NEED SCISSORS 61!!!
My thoughts exactly, best game ever!
And the resurgence of flat earth.
This is a terrible mischaracterization of Post-modernism. You make it sound like a political philosophy of "do whatever suits you", when in reality, postmodernism brings up questions like "what if there are variant forms of logic" and "to what extent does language influence the way we think something is true".
These are legitimate questions. Western Logic is analytical and linear, being based in mathematics. Hindu Logic, for example, though, is based in Grammar, and results in paraconsistencies. As a result, not only are the ideas between west and east different, the fundamental assumptions are different.
Also, the modernist west has been chained to the subject-object dichotomy, at least since Descartes. But the idea that "I think therefore I am" makes sense is based in the principle that every verb must be tied to a noun. That is a fashion of certain western languages, not a principle of philosophy. And there are null-subject languages like Korean.
But that's all irrelevant now.
Perhaps the nazi party had some good ideas-but from the way the ideology was used-came how it was known.
Sigalius Mýricantur fair point ; it’s still a bit rich though ; for postmodernism to deny certainty and still expect.us to take their own narrative seriously .
It just sounds like a bunch of over processed bullshit that really has no structure or absolutes. So in theory from a "post modernist" diagnosis (I can't say perspective right?) Lets say I've been diagnosed as having post modernist looking beliefs, the video poster is correct because it is HIS version of the definition. Therefore its correct. Everyones perspective of what post modernist means is correct. Therefore its a useless term. There are Plenty of other rational, structure terms and or constructs to take its place. like reffering to "dimensions" as a means to reasonably distinguish both sides of the skewed dichotomy line "post modernism" likes to constantly have in place for the sake of infinity.
Social sciences are soft sciences by definition but some people think they are above physics, mathematics and even the oldest science phylosophy.
Bass Nerds as a social worker I agree, but we do learn some sciences like sociology.
Phylosophy (sic) is a science?
no scientific discipline is "above" any other dumbass
Physics and math are social constructs invented to oppress me.
Snop Doge I agree, Gravity oppresses way more people than the patriarchy
Reads title: that thing paul joseph watson hates
Well imagine my shock
dammit Nash, LOL
Postmodernism: “There is no truth”
Common Sense: “Why do you say that like it’s true?”
Postmodernism: “…”
What is the difference between classical liberals and libertarians?
Classical liberals see more utility for the State than libertarians.
Classical liberals are Utilitarian while libertarians are deontological.
Classical liberals have general principles which they are flexible with while libertarians have a first principle from which everything else logically branches out from.
Sir Waffle They're functionally the same.
No the truth is "classical liberals" are what are known as neo-liberals. Neo-liberals are not that much better than neo-conservatives. Those who identify as centrists have to tread a fine line to avoid going too far to the upper right or lower right of the political spectrum. I dont have too much trouble with those who align themselves on the right so long as they dont desire theocracy or try to justify fascist overthrows of democratically elected governments because it somehow gets in the way of one's economic stances.
I disagree with your notion that classical liberals must be utilitarian. Many were, but I do not see it as a main component. The whole idea of separating classical liberals and libertarians is foolish. Libertarianism is obviously not a unified philosophy, but rather an overarching group of subgroups that are centered around liberty. Ancaps, minarchists, and many other distinct subgroups all fall under the broader umbrella of libertarianism. And one can come to libertarian conclusions not only based off of natural rights or NAP logic, but also through utilitarianism. Many anarcho capitalists argue for the abolition of the state on grounds of maximizing welfare. They mention all of the negatives that come from government and then keep going until they conclude with "government hurts liberty and liberty is good so therefore no government maximizes the good".
classical liberals are essentially fiscally conservative democrats. they believe in a self regulating market and small government, but also support immense personal freedoms, such as gay marriage, etc..
You heard it here folks, logic is a modern invention created in the enlightenment
Expect the followup video with him doing the "come on, you know what I meant" for every one of seven thousand glaring mistakes he made here.
He just needs to adapt the normal response in such a situation: "What, my video is wrong? ... Ofc! It was satire, you idiot!"
The "you idiot" is important because you don't want other voices in your echo chamber than your own.
I didn't mean it was created by the Enlightenment... he meant it didn't get the value that it holds today UNTIL the Enlightenment.
That's illogical! Oh wait. :)
Categorized. Recognized. Consciously practiced. Not invented.
Postmodernism is the subtle art of fixing everything that isn't broken.
Nice!
Fixing?
But just because it is not broken to you, doesn't mean it's not broken for someone else.
From what I'm understanding is that postmodern is a type community imperialism. What I mean by that is that postmodernist want to tare down the system to rebuild it and control it. And now they are the modernist. Multiple groups can want the same outcome but it's always whoever causes the outcome will now control and set the new rules. I don't anything about postmodernism. But this is my view on it. I would appreciate any sort of feedback. It can be negative or positive
@@NoName-eu2xw Community imperialism... So, like, the minority for whom something is oppressive changes that thing so that it isn't oppressive.
That sounds oddly familiar...
Can you help me understand how to form my thoughts better, in a way that meaningfully conveys my intended message? I struggle with that :^) Like, figuring out how to say this took way too long, and I still don't know if my question truly conveys my original intentions.
Maybe, instead of such a specific question, why don't I broaden it: How can I argue my points without making a fool of myself because of poor speaking skills? How can I become better at organizing my thoughts?
Step 1: chill
Step 2: read what you wrote out loud
Step 3: meditate (for real lol, sit in a quiet area and just contemplate)
Step 4: write down your question again.
HollyElise Inc being well educated on the subject matter helps, not being afraid of losing or looking foolish helps,
A condensed version would read: "how can I effectively communicate my ideas?"
I kind of hope he or someone actually does a video on this, because I have this problem too, at least to some extent. I mean, if I'm writing it down, I could probably convey my ideas pretty well if I have enough time, but when actually speaking, I tend to either forget the words I was about to say for whatever reason, or I just can't think of the words to properly convey what I want to.
Practice.
Hey skeptic, explain hyper normalisation.
Here's a pretty good video on the topic, though specifically looking at how the concept effects the video game industry
/watch?v=AdI757JhSeU
Published on my birthday too
Well holy shit I just asked this question I thought I'd be the only one
Post modernism is where you take down the fence, then examine each fence post to see which ones are rotted and need to be replaced. After you have "modernized" all the posts that need to be replaced, you then re-attach the fence.
I usually come here to make a meme comment.
Not today.
Pinhead Larry - finally realized you were just a post-modernist narrative in someone else's lived experience?
*Blasphemy!*
This comment serves no purpose, but I'll forgive it since the other option was a garbage meme.
If you're Pinhead Larry, does that make me Dirty Dan?
In school I learnt that postmodernism was more or less everythig is abstract, nothing has meaning.
wow postmodernests must be a depressed lot then.
Henry Webster that's what Christians say about atheists
And it must be true imagine living a life where nothing mattered since there was no God to judge you.
The Real question is, will Greg actually listen to Layman and do some improvement?
Explain the difference between Anarchists(antifa style) and AnCaps(Like Hans-Herman Hoppe).
Left Anarchists aka Libertarian Socialists, antifa or not, believe in the abolition of all illegitimate/unjustified forms of hierarchy, hence An"archy". Generally they're against authority structures in society such as the cops and military, corrupt governments and any form of Capitalist institution/private property. Since they are also Socialists, they generally advocate for workers' democratic control of the workplace.
Right Anarchists aka Anarcho-Capitalists, believe in the Non-aggression Principle (NAP), private property, free market & the Invisible Hand, believe that taxation is theft and the the government should be abolished. Since they are pro Capitalist, they considers wage labour a 100% "voluntary exchange", generally want to maintain the rigid hierarchy of a Capitalist system, and insist that they have absolute authority of the workplace (because it is "their property") over the workers.
edit: fix typos.
AnComs* versus Ancaps
ウタ Hiro but you NEED a dictatorial government with a millitary and extensive prison systems or death camps to impose a communist structure on society, so is it not an oxymoron?
antifa are anarchists in name only, if you are using force to push your will on others, you are not an anarchist by definition of the word
BastiatReport basicly anti-capitalist / socialist is a group.
And there are multiple movements in that group, for example Marxism or Anarchism.
Opposed to the other group: Capitalism, with conservatives, social democrats and anarcho-capitalist as movements.
Antifa is not part of this tree.
It's not the same thing.
Edit: I guess i misunderstood the question, sorry for that.
I thought Ancap stood for Anti-capitalist. Stupid me.
Should have talk about the Frankfurt School and it's "critical theory" and the influence of french postmodern thinkers such as Foucault , Derrida or Bourdieu...
They are the one who divided the society between oppressors / oppressed
This was a fantastic explanation! Thank you so much!!!
Postmodernism is beyond most of the skeptic community. The only reason some of them are beginning to discuss it (post modernism has been discussed by philosophers since the 1900s) is because Peter B. Jordanson is talking about it, and he is super hot right now. Skeptic did a pretty bad job explaining post-mod though. Its quite simple. Say you have a book written by someone. You read that book and find the meaning behind the book that the author was getting at. A Post-Modernist would say, you cant know for sure what the meaning behind the book is. There is an infinite amount of meanings, and therefore, you don't know what the TRUE meaning is. This makes post-mod deadly, because it basically is relativism on steroids, and and if it permeates, we will all go back to the stone age.
Elephantricity Peterson hasn't disappeared up his own ass yet?
That's only a slither of postmodernism. It's not relativism on steroids, because that itself would be an absolute, and as such non-postmodernist. It's a way to respond to truth claims, not identify or correct them.
Nor do I see you debunking that line of argumentation.
Is the answer "Crap"?
Just for the sake of a laugh, but do you grasp that a shape-shifting being with the ability to bend perception through hypnosis actually is a postmodern notion? It's a being that can change both it's own perception of self but the perception of identity of others, the postmodern human ideal if you will.
But yes it common application is crap.
Ergo I have the most authority to call it such.
"Proven through the lense of postmodernism" is an oxymoron
Ask Jordan Peterson if you want a really good answer to this question.
Kyle Mcg he hasn't done the required reading and if he has he really doesn't explain it farther than "it's bad"
Peterson doesn't even know what is marxism, post-modernism, etc. neither Armored Skeptic. At this point they are just buzzwords with no meaning other than to claim moral superiority over some philosophical beliefs that nobody in academia and not even any philosopher in the last 10 centuries believed or defended. Seriously. Read articles from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, not wikipedia. Or just read Derrida and Deleuze already.
(1) "The red pill of the 18th century" has to be the most cringe thing ever said. Sorry :/ (2) I don't think you understand that philosophers have always debated what objective truth is. It's called epistemology. We didn't just start doubting it because of some 20th century artistic movement. (3) Stop making all these false equivalencies. (4) You can empirically study things like "rape culture." If you don't understand the process of studying psychological sciences, or if you think that it is not possible because "postmodernism," then I'm sorry, you too are doubting your precious "objective truth." (5) To that point, the scientific method doesn't claim objectivity, but it is our only hope of falsifying things to a certain degree of objectivity. Without it, we fall down into death spiral reasoning, which lets our beliefs inform our observation inform our belief creation. Can't be checked. The sci-method is the best we've got, but can't *prove* certain things because of the process of falsification and theories (ex: it's *difficult* both to prove a multiverse and might just be *impossible* to prove a god's existence). Perhaps those religious people post-Enlightenment were the first "postmodernists" because they stopped looking objectively at things. But I also wouldn't say that. That is simply incorrect. Still, it doesn't give them any more validity. See where I'm going with this? (6) The Enlightenment caused many things, but the Industrial Revolution was still more than a century away. Yes, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment paved the way for this, but so did many other things... stop saying misleading things and making false equivalencies, again. (7) For a skeptic, you really don't challenge your own assumptions. It makes me feel misled.
I gave you a thumbs up because yes, the video is wrong, but I don't think you actually understand the claims of postmodernism. It's not "some 20th century artistic movement". It's the latest philosophical development in things like epistemology. Speaking of challenging assumptions.
You are 100% correct that postmodern thought affects far more than the arts, but in the context of the sentence I was employing a polemic to make fun of Armoured Skeptic who lumps together far too much and gives far too much credit to this phantom threat of postmodern thought. This is because, again, we have doubted objectivity for longer than the postmodern movement. And if you want to nitpick, just because I only attributed postmodern thought to an artistic movement in one sentence of my reply does not equate to me not understanding the claims of such a paradigm of thought.
Fair, fair.
Shakespeare said “there is no right or wrong but thinking makes it so” that sounds postmodern to me!
Here's a fun rabbit hole for the willing. "Shakespeare didn't even exist." Hey it's not my idea. I'm not sponsoring the idea just merely relaying the fact that it exists and it's surprisingly compelling.
@@jeffborders5526 mmm that’s a really good example of post modernism
I'm glad you're tackling this topic!
why dont you call me?
i love it when you call me, big papa
whaaaaaaat?!! a video that isn't 7 hours long? are you ok sceptic?!!!!
This video is an example of someone attempting to talk about something he has no idea about
Life is to fucking complicated
I knew this in philosophy class, but I forgot lol
researching for a school project. by far the most straight forward and easy to understand video I've found so far, and it even made me laugh. Good one!
What is Postmodernism?
I think I'd rather ask Logicked. At least I know he will research it properly.
Well, it's not that easy to research. First, because of the huge volume of material, second, because you would need some kind of introductory notion, which can take time (ie, at least dip your toes in philosophy and history, which he doesn't do AT ALL) so you could actually understand notions, terminology and historical sentiments. Let's not even go into the more complex things, such as is Lacan a postmodernist and why? Just an example.
@onetoone a great way to shit people up, "You don't talk about what you haven't researched extensively!", While respected people, like JBP, name postmodernism as part of the philosophy behind CRT indoctrinators, and Antifa/BLM rioters.
explained it better than both my history teachers.
probably because they teach history, not philosophy, and I agree with the other guy just because Greg's explanation is laid out well and would be all well and good if it was true, he too is not a philosopher and explains it poorly.
In a class I took on world religions, we discussed how modernism where religion is vacant and the horrible events that occurred in the 20th century created a post modernist world where nothing matters anymore and we as a species have no idea where to go next. We discussed a famous soviet dissenter, whose name I cannot spell for the life of me, who explained the reason why mankind became this way he said because "man has forgotten God".
Logic machine broke
🅱ogic 🅱achine 🅱roke
As someone who has actually written academic papers on postmodernism, I find your take on postmodernism woefully ignorant even at the most basic level.
Make response video pls
Great scholar please enlighten us.
@@murn3229 you want some scholar point of view and be enlighted by it? GO READ SCHOLAR'S PAPERS, thats where you go to leart that, not a fucking youtube comment section.
So, after many years of not watching AS, I've come back to this video after having gone through the proverbial mill of third level education to see if what skeptic said aligns with what I've since learned about postmodernism and share my insight on how it affected academia. My field is history, so I'm going to discuss what the postmodern movement did to the historical community.
Rocked it's ass is the answer. It was the 1980s and everything was a lie. Since the 1800s historians worked under the assumption that by delving into archival sources and supplementing them with some archaeological evidence an objective historical fact could be discerned. If you had Jesus' birth certificate you could claim with certainty he was born on the 25th December 0AD. Posmodernism then pointed out that historians were looking at the past through a medium, the sources which survived. Having Jesus' birth cert didn't make his date of birth a fact, it only made the existence of someone recording his birthdate a fact - the accuracy of sources was thrown into question. Then came the matter of narrative. Postmodern historians concluded that if a historian compiled as many sources as possible and then wrote a book on his chosen topic his account was not an uncovering of the facts of history but instead a reconstruction of what the past might have been to the best of our knowledge based on what sources say. All history out of necessity discards information which isn't pertinent and indulges in conjecture where information is limited. In this way a historian fashions a narrative in order to create an argument. The reason why historians disagree when using the same sources is because the narratives they've constructed point in different directions. This point on narratives and reconstructions has now been largely accepted as a limitation of the historical method in modern times, even by historians who are quite vocally against post-modernism. The most obvious example is the enlightenment principle of progress. Basically, enlightenment philosophy proposed that mankind was on an exponential trajectory of improvement, we would continue to get smarter, be wealthier, live better. History written with this mindset formed a narrative which reflected that ideology, so if you wrote about the french state it was a history of how the french people were destined to pull themselves out of absolutism and achieve wealth in industrialism - everything had a trajectory. Modern (really postmodern) history rejects this notion, there is no inevitable trajectory to improvement in anything. If we take a concept like lower class wealth, we no longer expect and then write about the gradual accrual of capital, we instead see an ebb and flow, some generations live wealthier than the ones before and then there's some crash and everyone's worse off for a couple of generations. History is unpredictable and volatile.
However, the sticking point of contention was the idea of 'objective truth', this was the really concerning spanner that postmodernism threw in the historical works. If historians couldn't achieve objective truth then why were we studying history at all? The belief that history couldn't prove anything was then coopted by holocaust deniers. 'Historians only make reconstructions, they can't prove the holocaust happened.' This all came to a head with the Irving V Lipstadt defamation trial. In short, historian Deborah Lipstadt called pop-lit history author David Irving a holocaust denier in her book based on what Irving said in his published works. Irving sued Lipstadt for defamation and used postmodern ideology as a defence. 'There are no objective truths in history, I have a narrative, Dr Lipstadt has hers, we conflict but neither are wrong.' He was then met with an absolute tour de force of historians who demonstrated the methods of history, how we corroborate sources and prove facts within the limits of our sources. This has been termed 'qualified objectivity'. The court ruled that historical methods could establish knowledge about the past. In this sense, traditional modernism won.
I'd like to finish by pointing out that postmodernism also expanded what historians considered worthwhile to study. Where before history was either political, economic,military, or personal (so-called 'great man' history) the debate soon moved on to look at what else there was to talk about. Women's history, social history, affect history, global history, religious history - all these disciplines got their start because postmodernism demanded that history take on a wider scope to get a fuller image (or reconstruction) of what the past was like. What was deemed a valid source was also expanded, where before we relied on written survivals and archaeology the map was now open. Architecture, oral tradition, period novels, artwork, political cartoons. Admittedly postmodernism also creates a blurred line between primary and secondary sources but i wont get into that right now. Finally, postmodernism also demanded that we revise what we've said in the past, re-read our sources and look at them more sceptically - this is revisionism. Many take revisionism to mean a 're-writing' of history in an Orwellian sense but more accurately it's a belief that we shouldn't take one book, written 130 years ago, as the be all end all of historical fact on a topic. The sources that that historian used should be re-read more critically, if more sources have been uncovered they should be included, and if we find that that historians conclusions were wrong then we should write corrections.
In summary, postmodernism is like a bomb that blows up conventional wisdom. It's a philosophy based on hyper scepticism and atomising knowledge. It takes a while but it usually finds a settled place in academic communities. Some of its tenants have been absorbed in historical methods, some have been legally disproved -something that doesn't happen often in ANY academic discipline. It's usually not easy to come on one side or the other when talking about something as nebulous as postmodernism. It's a multifaceted concept with some good ideas and some bad. The key point though is that it was exactly what history needed at the time to research more varied topics, ask new questions and justify its own existence.
Hi Skeptic! Love the channel and good job on the content. You seem to really do your research.
Based on my education and experience, (I have a BA in Political Science and an MBA, both from good public universities.) the following is how i learned it and how i apply it.
The difference between Modernism and Postmodernism breaks down to exactly what you alluded to, cause and effect.
The difference is that in Modernism, the past and the meaning we assign to it are treated as constants. This has been a fantastic school of thought for a long time but lends itself to paradoxes in certain circumstances. Shroedingers cat is a good example. A modernist would basically say that cat is alive AND dead simultaneously. This sounds good except we cannot extrapolate further without certainty. We cannot decide whether or not to bring the cat food or bury it. And from an economic perspective doing both leads to inefficiency.
Postmodernism is not so much a response ( many people say it is but it drastically oversimplifying the concept) as it is an alternative solution. What a postmodernist would say is that we know whether or not to feed tor bury the cat based on our own experiences with the cat. Postmodernism does not claim to have the correct answer to whether or not to feed the cat, but instead postulates that the state of the cat can be inferred based a combination emotional and rational judgement. The problem with postmodernism is that while it is highly deductive, it is not very inductive. A postmodernist may say something like “i feel like its a lucky cat, so i should bring it food”. Now postmodernism does not claim you will be right, only that you now have a process for going further than modernism. Thats one of the reasons we called it postmodernism.
I am an options trader and i use postmodern thought in certain probability models, so it does have value.
The problem lies when people try to make Postmodernism an inductive model, which it is not. Taking the cat example, its impossible to create a generalized law about whether or not to feed the cat if everyone found their cat in shroedingers box, postmodernism would say each and every person would need to use their own system of beliefs, values, and rational thought to determine whether or not to feed the cat.
This is why modernism and and postmodernism coexist from a political and financial standpoint. This is how i learned it in school and thought id share.
Unfortunately like many schools of thought, it changes depending on what craft you practice. For an art student, its a style. For historians, its a period more defined by skepticism. It has many practical effects in business and finance. ( a company like amazon made no sense from a modernist standpoint) modernist economics taught that things Porters five forces model would predict amazons failure. A postmodern approach ( analysizing the Free cash flow model) would have predicted this success early on.
I have drastically oversimplified these concepts in the interest of brevity, even as long as this text wall is it could go one for days.
Just figured id share my perspective. Thanks for the videos! I appreciate the work that goes into making these.
You misrepresent what "modernists", aka skeptics, would think about the Shroedingers cat thought experiment. In reality they would assume that the cat is neither alive nor dead because you can't verify either until you opened the box.
Sin thanks for the reply.
Modernists are not skeptics and the two are deal with entirely dofferent realms of knowledge. Modernity is has to do with efficiency whereas skepticism is more dealing with how we acquire knowledge the in the first place.
Also, if you open the box, its no long schroedingers cat as it loses the metaphor to quantum phenomena entirely.
Modern and postmodernism are two ends of one spectrum. Skepticism is a broad term for a wide branch of epistemology. There are postmodern as well as modern skeptics as well as skeptics who are neither.
Best
@@nicholastarzia5863 modernists are skeptics my dude. Skepticism exists because skeptics understand that ones own personal understanding isn't efficient enough to accurately do experiments. They use their peers to constantly evolve their thinking when exploring new ideas, and consistently change what they think based on data.
I'm afraid you blew it, Skeptic. Yes, postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, but modernism isn't what you think it is. The Enlightenment and the Renaissance are not "Modernism." The Enlightenment and the Renaissance brought with them some horrors, like the French revolution and the bloody overthrow of kings. Modernism was a reaction to the of horror to World War I. Modernism rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking.
Think of modern art, Andy Warhol, Picasso... Think of the stream-of-consciousness novel, atonal music, abstract art, etc... That was modernism -- an attempt to break with past traditions and create new ones.
News to many of us. That's because you say so? My goodness, too many self-appointed intellectuals nowadays. I think it was better when the Pope and a few sages interpreted whatever needed interpretation and everyone else minded their own functional business. You, guys, are tiring.
@@roses6564 yeah why dont everyone just plant some diseased potatos and drop dead young in pig shit like the good ol' days, right?....... get outta here
Oh dear, a cultural Marxist. I've spotted one.
@@infinitydude7305 Im dead lmfaooo
Explain the difference between a Democracy and a Republic. It's a good one that more people need to understand.
You just tee it up for Dr. Layman, don't you?
I really liked your editing in this video. Nicely done!
Not breaking down things constantly gives me anxiety because I can’t find a satisfying base to start from.
We, the audience, will not forget your recent fuck ups as they are pointed out by Logicked or hbomberguy. And we will not be satisfied until you finally address their videos and admit your short comings. Trying to sit it out will not work.
Speak for all do you?
Yeah, L0LWTF1337 was made Audience Spokesperson for the Skeptic audience at the last meeting on Tuesday, WHICH YOU MISSED! Next time, bother to show up and you won't be so out-of-touch.
+L0LWTF1337 How are you subcribed to both hbomberguy and chris ray gun? How does this work from a consistency standpoint? Are you a super human?
Cause unlike you hypocrites that claim that they are for dialogue and differing ideas, I actually listen to both sides. At least as long as they stay close to the facts which the Anti-sjw side drifts away from each day.
L0LWTF1337 he did that!
As always i will quote myself: It's not idea that is bad, it's always people that fuck everything up.
As a skeptic you should have a lot of post-modernist views. You shouldn't question everything all the time, but the heart of post-modernism is skepticism.
I'm still befuddled that someone so smart can continue to pronounce the word "tenet" as "tenant."
I'm actually really happy you explained this, it really shines a light on all of this. And while we may never understand them, knowing that they think on a different spectrum means that perhaps at some point when we begin to understand them we can finally explain things to them.
The issue is, he explained it *wrong.* Just, like, catastrophically wrong. People with even a 101-level understanding of Postmodernism are facepalming at him claiming things like "patriarchy" and "cultural appropriation" are postmodernist ideas. It sounds like a noxious mixture of Stephen Hicks' and Jordan Peterson's terminally wrong takes on Postmodernism. Postmodernism is a tough subject, but I suggest you check out CCK Philosophy or Tom Nicholas, among others, if you want to *actually* understand it.
So some people are misusing postmodern ideas just as some people are misusing science.
Can we have a logical/secular criteria for objective morality?
Objectivism machine broke.
No. It doesn't make any sense. See Heidegger, Sartre or Wittgenstein.
Green Acorn It isn't possible for post-modernists, nihilists, and anybody with a disdain for an earthly authority can ask this question in the certainly they will win the argument: "who is this mortal philosopher to claim these 'truths' and upon what station?"
This problem is answered with God because He is neither proven or disproven scientifically. God not only is the creator of all things, according to the Theology, but is also the God who led the Jews out of Egypt and to Mount Sinai for Moses to receive the Ten Commandments. It is one thing for a God to claim that He is the creator of the world but written in the First Commandment, God led the Jews out of Egypt and the house of bondage; which shows that He wants His creation to be free thus He cares about his creation.
So if you follow a philosophical descendant from the Ten Commandments such as Judaism or Christianity then it is written into the theology that God has serious authority for you are in His debt because by His will you are free. Repayment of that debt comes through treating your fellow man ethically as asserted in the 10 Commandments at the very least.
Rejection of the authority of God increases the likelihood that he will flood the world as in the story of Noah or that you will be enslaved to immorality or to another person for the absence of the fear of God lies no wisdom. It is unwise to reject God and His word because that is to dispel the only true source of morality and human rights. You only need to see what resulted from the nihilism and totalitarianism of 20th century Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia plus Maoist China to see that humans are not very good at creating an ideology that doesn't result in the death of more than 100 million people; to see that a determined horrible individual soon leads to a people without God and their liberty.
The 20th century was a flood of blood and that was because enough individuals arrogantly thought they were beyond God's lecturing and could "think for their selves". They ended up adopting a false God; beit socialism, Marxism, communism, fascism, Nazism, and nowadays intersectional social justice or alt-right philosophy. The objective truth is self-evident in that God decides it, not humanity.
Apologies for the long essay. It's quite a difficult thing to articulate and I wanted to do my best to give the question a darn good go, and present as much as what I've got a handle on so far.
Kaiser Mertz god said he wouldnt do that again. So... no he wont.
Morality varies so wildly around the world that it's absurd to even think there could be objective morality.
Post modernism proves the earth is flat.
Ironically modal logic can prove that the earth is flat and modal logic it is a extension of aristotelian logic and most of first order logics.
Speaking as a student in logic: modal logic can do no such thing. In fact, no type of logic that is used anywhere could prove such a thing. The flat earth is an empirical, or synthetic claim: a claim about the abstract world. Logic can only prove analytic claims: claims about how concepts relate to one another.
Only if you assumed certain premises could you prove such a thing. Even then I can guarantee you that with reasonable premises, modal logic could not prove such a thing.
@@rex635 Student of logic? Fuck me, that's a thing?
@@uselessspectator9427 It's a master's degree. It might not be exactly what you think, though. A lot of it is a very rigorous mathematical analysis of formal (logical) languages and their models, although there are also a number of classes on the more philosophical and linguistic aspects.
The Enlightenment era ideas were NOT like the Red Pill of those days, because the Red Pill is Right wing, and the Enlightenment era ideals and thinkers were Left wing.
this is so narrow i can’t believe i wasted 12 minutes on it
I don’t get why people come in to make comments like this.
You may very well be correct, and I’d be interested to know what you think is missing, or misleading, here.
Would you like to add anything?
@@samuelblock2727 bro 8 months are gone. And he didn't reply you?
You refer to them "speaking two different languages." Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to this as Sprachspiele, or "Language Games," with the notion that different disciplines use terminology differently (they're using the same game pieces, but playing by different rules), and this leads to no little confusion and frustration. You can read about Wittgenstein's views on this in _Über Gewißheit,_ or in English translation in _On Certainty._ It's a brief text, but a very important one.
That's a very limited interpretation of Sprachspiele I think. In all honesty, everything written about in Philosophischen Untersuchungen (I'll fuck up the spelling, srry)is very postmodernist.
_Philosophische Untersuchungen._ Ludwig Wittgenstein was one of the leading lights in Analytic Philosophy, which deals with Logic; while some Postmodernists have made use of some of his concepts, I cannot imagine anyone who knows his work suggesting that he himself was postmodernist or would have supported Postmodernism.
Early Wittgenstein, maybe. Though I cannot for the life of me imagine anyone suggesting he was in agreement with the Analytical thinkers of his time. He hated the positivist interpretations of his work.
His fideism is straight up existentialist. His logical solipsism (from the TLP) is used all the time to demonstrate the flaws of modernist thought.
No, later Wittgenstein. Logical Positivism was, as Plantinga accurately demonstrated, "self-referentially incoherent," so I cannot fault Wittgenstein for hating their interpretations of his work. Analytic Philosophy is much broader than Logical Positivism. You also have, for example, the Logical Atomists, and a continuing evolution up through Quine, after whom the distinctions between Analytic and Speculative Philosophy were generally not emphasized so much. You had Analytic Philosophy before Frege and Moore, too, and you still have Speculative Philosophy after Wittgenstein and Quine. The division into Analytic and Speculative is artificial and, imo, rather pretentious.
The _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ is from Wittgenstein's early period, and as I stated previously, while some Postmodernists have made use of some of his concepts, that does not mean that he would have agreed with them.
Wait, you think later Wittgenstein is less postmodernist than early Wittgenstein? Really.
Honestly I can't think of a philosopher from his time period that more embodied postmodernist thought than Wittgenstein, even the early existentialists.
And he wasn't a Logical Atomist either, so what's the point of that.
To return to the original point: I think you're really quitting the fideistic/existentialist and yes, postmodernist implications of Sprachspiele short.
A vital point related to Sprachspiele is that Wittgenstein, though I cannot remember the quote exactly, so I'll paraphrase, argued it's meaningless to complain about the rules of any given language game, or to even claim there's such things as overarching, transcendent rules.
Modernist = Logic & Reason
Post-Modernist = Feelings
“Gregory what’s a lesbian”
Sooo... The pre-war america we see in Fallout is the product of a world without postmodernism?
Royal 97 basically.
seems like a balance would be the most healthy thing.
Not at all, it doesn't require post modernist thinking for people to realize that mutual assured destruction is a very bad thing to have happen and to avoid it.
In fact post modern thought would be far more likely to allow said destruction.
Pre-war Fallout isn't just about mutually assured destruction. American exceptionalism was on ridicoulus levels before the bombs dropped and scientific progress was seen as more important than everything else, especially human lives (see Vault-tec, the enclave, the experiments on the FEV and other disgusting experiments). We learn through the terminals that questioning the authorities was a cardinal sin and most of the population behaved and obeyed blindly. So yeah, I would argue that the Fallout pre-war america had a severe lack of a postmodernist perspective. Like I said, there was far more stuff wrong with that world even before the bombs dropped.
No it's a product of lazy writing
The reason why privelege is difficult to understand, is very simple; *it does not exist.*
The false concept of privelege, is the means by which those who *do* want to maintain the supremacy or chauvanism of one particular group, (usually the opposite group(s) to the one which has historically been dominant) attempt to subvert the thinking of people within the same movement, who genuinely *do* want parity or equality between individuals and groups.
The single biggest mistake that people make where social justice is concerned, is assuming that social justice has fundamentally benevolent intentions. It does *not.* The goal of social justice is not to produce anything desirable or positive. The goal of social justice is exclusively to subvert and destroy. They come up with various means of masking that fact, but it's all a lie.
"The Postmodernists rejected modernist empiricism."
Spinoza and Descartes glower in the corner
Postmodernist thought is just BS. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
@@flylord4361 let them have it.
It seems intellectually dishonest to me to simply claim that postmodernist arguments are all per definition not debatable with a classical scientific approach.
The list of subjects you rattle down starting with 8:30 is not arcane and exclusive to postmodernist approaches, they are all very much researchable - even if that is not especially easy in some cases.
We can do different studies to find out whether for example toxic masculity is something that should be taken more into consideration. Actually, in this case we just have to take notice of what happens to society now that many of what has been identified as causes for toxic masculitiy by "postmedernists" slowly are eroded away in some places (less gendered toys, growing acceptance of masculine figures in media who are mostly defined by macho behavior etc).
Same with things like rape culture. Do more in-depth surveys and studies to see where rape is happening, who commits it and see what the causes of it are. Question rapist in extensive discussions to find out what experiences drove them to their actions etc.
Other concepts like cultural appropriation require respectful discourse with minorities and indigenous people to gain more insight into their experience. It requires critical research about the slow changes in cultural perception to find out how casual depiction of holy and important garments, rituals etc in popular media shapes the image of these cultures.
Nevertheless, thinking about these issues and concluding certain facts from personal experience and discussions with affected people is not an unscientific approach. And this is exactly how social sciences arrived at these concepts and the theories behind them (which you didn't even mention).
You also presented the whole issue in manipulative ways.
On the one hand, you attack students and activists for abandoning the principles of scientific method and rational thought (here I agree with you), but fail to point out that the core concepts you critisize were developed with EXACTLY THESE METHODS.
You lump dissenting rebelious voices who in your mind represent the problems with postmoderninst into one group with actual scientists without showing that they do not follow the same thought processes and do not base their conclusions on the same logic (or lack thereof).
It seems to me that you take the easy way out, painting "Postmodernism" as the boogey man and just lump all ideas from recent (and not quite so recent) social science research into one big pile of "irrational" bullshit. That way, they are easy to attack by using some misguided activists as a staw man to paint all progressives who support certain points of view with one broad "SJW" brush.
I am wondering if you are willingly trying to mislead your audience or if you are simply a victim of your own confirmation bias as humans are so prone succumbing to.
This is something I noticed in your latest batch of videos - you have latched onto the idea of "SJW" ideas being at their core non-scientific and ideologally driven per definition and just run with it, without ever pausing to research your assumtion and check with all available sources.
The "living in their own world" claim you throw at postmodernists seems to be becoming more and more applicable to the community of self-labeled rationals on youtube. I notice less and less discussion of scientific discourse, and more and more baseless blame and ridicule.
There are countless studies done on most of the subjects you critisize and I hope you will do a video in the future that adresses them and to reflect upon why you have omitted them from the discussion.
"Nevertheless, thinking about these issues and concluding certain facts from personal experience and discussions with affected people is not an unscientific approach."
This is a *completely* unscientific approach. Statistical analysis of large groups of people are scientific. The individual opinions of a person's subjective experience is anecdotal, and is not permissible in any science (including most social sciences). You cannot do a replication study on a sample of one.
"This is something I noticed in your latest batch of videos - you have latched onto the idea of "SJW" ideas being at their core non-scientific and ideologally driven per definition and just run with it, without ever pausing to research your assumtion and check with all available sources."
SJW ideas *are* unscientific. Explicitly so. Name one that isn't, clearly define it, then demonstrate the studies and evidence which have confirmed it, and the independent research that has verified it. Good luck.
"There are countless studies done on most of the subjects you critisize and I hope you will do a video in the future that adresses them and to reflect upon why you have omitted them from the discussion."
There are no studies done on this sort thing. There are interpretations of statistical data to fit a specific narrative. You cannot study "patriarchy" without an exclusionary narrative that rejects facts that do not fit said narrative. If you did, the entire concept would collapse in a flaming pile of evidence.
But it's not real postmodernism Jacquesne! Educate yourself on what true femin- I mean true postmodernism is!
Serious now: These people defending postmodernism are like feminists defend feminism. Kinda sad really.
It's the motte-and-bailey argument...take an uncontroversial or impossible to argue against definition (feminism/postmodernism have too many definitions to argue against!) when defending it (motte), but use the definition you want ('x' person is sexist because feminism, 'y' person is an oppressor because postmodernism) at all other times (bailey).
If you accepted the motte argument, nobody could even say that feminism is different in any way than postmodernism, because the definition is basically "whatever I want it to mean".
Post-modern art can be a critique on post-modernism itself.
why aren't the postmodernist concepts also called into question through the lense of postmodernism, if it means to call into question of everything that came before?
Thank you for the amazing video. I'm starting to get interested in post-postmodernism, and I wonder if it actually have groundings in philosophy or just in literature. It would be interesting to see a video about it.
I don't think questioning is necessarily bad, but when you let go of things like logic and reason, you're letting go of the process by which you ANSWER those questions. In a vacuum of logic, you're left with raw emotion and group think to define what is right and wrong. Which leads us to the emotionally charged regressive social justice movement.
ARE YOU JUST TRYING TO PRETEND AS IF LOGICKED NEVER MADE A VIDEO? TOO BAD, WE WILL NOT FORGET!
This isn't something to explain as much as to have a conversation abut. How do you view our future in a world of science? Like:
The inevitability of robots consuming all the free jobs.
Recent concepts for faster than light travel.
Unlimited super precise gene editing with CRISPR-Cas9 and the debate on is it "moral" to have a person who is born superior and a lesser person born naturally.
Do you think an AI would threaten humanity or help us with exponential growth in research?
Do you think all of existence is a simulation?
Will Greece join Russia in a new USSR because of Russia offering to pay off their debts and then sum.
Should a colony on mars be a new country, a colony of the country who sent it or a neutral colony of earth?
What era of music do you like the most and what does ShoeOnHead like?
Should we transform mars before we try colonize it?
and so on.
Easily the major reason i gave up on Sociology during my University days and stuck with History. Too much crazy post modernism.
This has made me wonder this question:
Are we all stupid without realizing it?
That could be a good question for the Vids.
Yes, yes we are.
Short answer: yes. Even pretending to have more logic/answers than others is hella debatable.
yes.
how do magnets work?
Shorun's Gaming corner, are you banned both in Google and in Wikipedia?
Shorun's Gaming corner take grade 12 physics and you will find out
The problem with postmodernism in academia isn't necessarily deconstructionism as such, it is that only specific (western, individualist) ideas are deconstructed and abandoned. The primary premises of Marxism (collectivism, the productive don't create wealth but steal it) are never questioned or deconstructed. The abandonment of principles does not leave a vacuum of principles, it simply means the speaker does not even realize what principles she may operate on. Postmodernism, when adopted as a primary philosophy, leaves one enslaved to bias, dogma, and emotional whim.
Who the fuck is armodr skeptic? What are his credentials? Why should we even pay attention to him?
Aydin Paladin made a response to this. Why did this happen again, Greg? Just post some sources
sounds a lot like Nietzsche, this is what Thus spoke Zarathustra is about.
Who people think is an example of postmodernism personified: Kat Blaque
Who is actually postmodernism personified: The Amazing Atheist
Postmodernism doesn't mean what you think it means. JBP uses it in this really strange way and it's caused the entire skeptic community to wholly misunderstand the movement. Here are a few postmodern writers who you may have heard of: William S Burroughs (Naked Lunch, Junky), Alan Ginsberg, Charles Bukowski, Bret Easton Ellis (the guy who wrote American Psycho). Memes are an example of postmodernism, Family Guy and Breaking Bad are examples of postmodernism...postmodernism is... not that serious. Being "not that serious" is postmodern.
Modernists were trying to build a utopia, postmodernists were doing it for the lulz.
Postmodernism is not the boogeyman you think it is, the boogeyman you are thinking of is some branch of critical theory. Now I'm just going to wait here while this comment is buried.
When people knock post modernism they are often talking about Marcuse and all the Frankfurt school Marxists intent on destroying western civilization. SJWs are pretty much quoting old Marcuse garbage.