"The shape of the earth keeps changing according to science" The shape has never changed, scientific understanding of the shape has changed, but earth's shape was always the same.
A postmodernist could subvert this to "so the multiple genders always existed and it's our understanding of them that changed" for example to justify their views.
@Ernestine clearly we are on the same side and you articulated my point. I used the gender example but it happens with other areas as can currently be seen. They start with ideas that aren't wrong and point the blind spots in current ideas (most blind spots are said ideas' inherent vice as in example capitalism and inequality). That gives them a foot in the door, once inside they stretch their idea ad absurdum (well past the point they are sensible and justifiable) always using the other's flaw as justification and validation to encroach further.
I get your point. But didn't the Earth start unrecognizable to what it is today and then (Thru a lot of spinning and being hit by stuff) become the spud shape it is today and in the future may become spherical. 'You spin me right round, baby, right round. King...
MJBull515 Exactly! As I said elsewhere: A regular conman couldn’t get away with revealing his fraud to you up front in this way. In this regard, and in this regard only, postmodernism is truly exceptional!
Monkey Master You are very confused. Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to begin your rehabilitation. I believe in you (even if you don’t believe in anything, ya goddamned POMO!).
@@sybo59 read an intro book about Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience then get back to me. The schizophrenic experiences the hallucination, but is it real?
Gsak As you know, this is not the place for a comprehensive treatise, yet that’s exactly what’s needed for one to gain real understanding of such complex subjects. A nudge here can be enough. I’ve certainly benefitted from that kind of thing.
zap rowsdower I wasn’t talking to you. But no, while it’s true someone is experiencing a hallucination, it is not real in the sense that it corresponds to external reality.
(as he responds to Hicks's slavery provocation) "I never say anything true" ... then runs in circles with the best of any wheel-running laboratory mouse regarding slavery. non-sensical jibbering .... what a great technique of debate.
Steve Smiff Glad it’s not just me that struggled with following this ‘blathering and overly emotional teenager’ approach to argumentation! It didn’t even reach the level of Gish-galloping. I maintain that Russell is on some sort of acid trip here. Totally nonsensical!
@@echo1174 1. One Google search shows you that scientific breakthroughs can happen at Universities www.bu.edu/articles/2019/12-scientific-breakthroughs-2019/ 2. Ur wrong about the development of the idea of race. Britannica says that race began it's development as an idea in the 15th century during European invasions of other places and colonialism. 3. The whole idea that truth is fact is what postmodernism debates , we understand that facts exist, but truth claims are relative bc they do change whereas facts don't . Postmodernism tries not to make totalizing truth claims.
He "clarifies" by saying he is working within a modernist framework. So he is forced to say something is true or false. Don't understand how that makes sense.
Postmodernism is an excuse for manipulativeness in conversation, and even tyranny. When there's no truth, discourse is just an exercise in winning. The existence of truth adds a guidepost to the mix that reduces the personal aspect of the debate, so that it's not just a power-trip. -- Sure, the process of representation entails some distortion, but if one employs the systems of representation with consistency and good faith, one can arrive at representations that enable rockets, smartphones, and brain surgery. Objective truth doesn't have to be absolute truth to *work.* -- Another problem with postmodernism is that in time, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For postmodernists, there's no truth, and hence no representation of reality for them to hold onto, and they become detached from reality. People who are surrounded by a lot of postmodernists should take note of how many of them are mentally ill. Postmodernism pushes postmodernists toward becoming not only manipulative jerks, but insane manipulative jerks.
If you kick around ideas for the first time as a stoned teenager who rebels against the group testing their own values system you do what the guy in the greeb polo does. For most people reality Hicks in when they start living and creating and stop smokin
"I never speak the truth, I'm telling stories" If Thaddeus thinks he's just playing around with his own ideas, then that's fine, he can live in his own solipsist world. His whole argument is a glaring non sequitur to move from "we have made mistakes or changed our mind about how things are" to "we can never know what things are." Thad mistakes a "universal" and "eternal" Platonic conception of truth and assumes that since omniscience is impossible, then any truth must be impossible. It is a quite banal argument really.
The universe is very complex and the fact is there is a lot we don't know. To know the absolute truth of something, you need to know everything about it that is relevant, because even that one little thing you *don't know* could dramatically alter how you perceive that thing, which would change not the truth, but the story of it. It can be difficult to accept that finding truth could be impossible, but ask yourself, why do you find it necessary to label things as the truth? We have to learn to live in a world where we might only be 99.9% certain of something, instead of 100%. If your less than 100% certain, you have a story, not the truth. Keep in mind though, that stories are very useful and instrumental.
@@Jimraynor45 Omniscience is not a standard for knowledge. This is what Demsetz referred to as the "Nirvana fallacy." It just plain does not follow that because we don't have an instant 100% grasp of reality to not having any knowledge of reality. Human knowledge is achieved in pieces, step by step, and thus need not be regarded as a static, instant, "universal" and "eternal" revelation.
@@2046-b2o It is if you want to claim your knowledge represents objective truth. Just because I discovered something, or found some knowledge does not mean I've discovered the "truth." Now, there is the off chance that the things we've discovered are in fact absolute truth, but unless we have omniscience, than we will remain less than 100% certain we have. The key is acknowledging what we don't know, but the problem is we don't know what we don't know!!! So long as this is the case, we can never be 100% certain about the truth of something, as uncomfortable as an idea that may be.
@@Jimraynor45 Since _that_ kind of "objectivity" (a 100% instant, omniscient grasp) is a fantasy, it is neither needed or desired. It serves only as a convenient Platonic straw man for you to knock over.
I went to grad school in literature. All I read was French postmodern philosophy. Why???? I’ve read all that Peterson supposedly hasn’t and it doesn’t change that he’s right about it.
The tragedy that even Derrida warned people of the implications of Deconstruction is probably the most revealing aspect of how dangerous postmodernism can be.
I also agree with Russell that classical Marxism is incompatible with PM, but the fact that many PMs consider themselves Marxists should tell you something about one or perhaps both of those ideologies.
It's just Marxism without the teleology (namely the inevitably thesis of communism), and expanded beyond economics to include race, gender, culture, etc. Marxism is very much the starting influence of the postmodernists, as evidenced by Russell himself as he said he used to be one, among other postmodern colleagues.
@@woodchuck003 it's not hard, if you have a basic understanding of what constitutes postmodernism and a basic understanding of that which constitutes Marxism
@@acex222 on a long enough timeline you are correct. But in short bursts the are both going to talk shit about free markets. Difference a Marxists will blame the bourgeoisie, well the postmodernist would blame the patreocy or White people.
Russell: "Jordan Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about! Grrr, Jordan Peterson, grrrr!" Russell: *proceeds to validate exactly what Peterson says about Post-modernism*
I'm sad that people including Jordan Peterson (which I highly respect) have fallen to this slandering view of postmodernism Stephen Hicks is proposing. Jordan Peterson is a very intelligent man but I truly believe his only source on postmodernism is Stephen Hicks (a very unreliable source). if he actually read postmodernist literature, I bet he would be surprised how much of a postmodernist he himself is (with the hierarchy of competence and all that). postmodernism is not relativistic in nature (Derrida made it clear on that), postmodernism is not identity politics, postmodernism heavily criticized marxism, and all Stephen Hicks. I always say this but Stephen Hicks is to postmodernism what Cathy Newman was to JBP.
@james sc Encyclopedia Britannica, often forgotten but more reliable than Wikipedia (think about it, article authors and editors have to put their name to it creating accountability for misinformation or disinformation.
That was the very first one that really pissed me off. Electroshock is a very useful, and valid form of treatment. Ignoring the fact that he lied about almost everything he said to a large extent, the fact that he would bring up electroshock as some form of quack medicine just put on full display how grotesquely ignorant he is.
I have never had ect but I know ppl that work in mental hospitals and they all say ect can be extremely effective for deep depression. I just looked really bad in the 1950s coz they did sedate the patient. So he lost me at 4.30. If u are going to be debating at such a high level you can't have gaffs like that, you should just be run off stage.
No post modernist has said this or if they did the tongue if firmly planted in the cheek. Also, Warhol’s whole career was exploring art in a post - modern area. He was a post modernist.
Matthayi Naalaaman the point is stories are not ‘just’ stories, it recognises how history can be told by different involved parties and have very different narratives. Neither are wrong by their telling. He uses the word ‘stories’ or ‘narrative’ in response to the modernist view being debated which tries to tell us there is a universal and objective truth. The post modernist would this world view as a story amongst many. The story is the post modern ‘truth’ in the sense that it can have many authors and is ever developing and being revised, always in flux and changing and often requires a listening to the other voices/characters not heard.
@@Bc2ast -- There have been plenty of skeptics around since the pre-Socratics. In modern times, Descartes began his Meditations with methodological doubt, and as Heidegger recognized, virtually invented the concept of subjectivity. Locke's Essay included a bunch of skeptical considerations, and his argument for religious toleration is based on assertions about our inability to possess absolute truth. Locke based his argument for religious toleration on our incapacity to possess absolute truth. And so on, and so on, and so on. Thad's history of truth is a straw man. He speaks as if everyone who has ever argued for a traditional notion of truth was an absolutist, and that no one prior to postmodernism was capable of doubt intellectual nuance. -- If you read serious works of philosophy, like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein, et al, you can discern a sense of serious, good-faith inquiry in their works. Most postmodernists read like flippant, arrogant illusionists. -- When there's no such thing as truth, human discourse devolves into an exercise in manipulating interlocutors. It becomes an exercise in ego and power. And look at what it does to its recipients: huge quantities of them turn out to be intolerant SJWs, who behave just as much as absolutists as Medieval inquisitors.
There is an old saying that you can tell alot about a tree by the fruit that it bears. Post-modernism, correctly applied or not, is producing a bumper crop of collectivists and would be authoritarians.
Thad would claim those are not actual post modernists. They are religious in nature and post-modernism is inherently non-religious because there are no truth claims. That's what he'd say, anyway.
What is an authoritarian? I take it to mean someone who believes truth and right comes from power, and therefore the person in the position of the most power is the most right, likewise, the person who is the most right should be in the most power for authoritarianism to be effective. This is the un-democratic principle of giving more tools of governance to a particular voting block to ensure that the election cannot swing the other way, or justifying breaking norms on the basis that the transgressor is "right" to ignore norms because they are more correct than their predecessors. What is a collectivist? I take it to mean someone who thinks that power comes through consensus and shared resources. A collectivist believes that one man alone has very little liberty, since they can only act as far as their own resources can influence their sphere. But finding a larger group of like-minded people, they can pool effort and resources, and then establish a larger sphere of influence, securing liberty for more. This is antithetical to an individualist's understanding of liberty, but then again... What is an individualist? I take it to mean someone who believes that a person can only be truly free if unconstrained by the influence of others, and that when engaging in a society, they should not allow others to pressure them economically, dogmatically, or with physical force. I take it that many watchers of Reason are self-identified individualists, and would pride themselves on their ability to shake off the influence of any group as soon as they disagree. But I would also take it that collectivists and individualists can both be Authoritarians. A collectivist authoritarian would think because their block is the most correct, that they should be given the most political power. This could be considered one-party rule An individualist authoritarian would believe that they are the most right, and therefore they should have more control over their life than any societal influences. This could be considered an anarchist, or at least a solipsist. I reject authoritarianism on the basis that I do not believe that power makes someone more correct. I believe that truth comes from common understandings, dialogue, examination of the world, and that it is mutable. Essentially, though, I do not believe that political power should be given up to someone or some group just because they are right for now, because inevitably, they won't be right forever, and then they will be wrong and powerful. And yes I'm a self identified postmodernist SJW.
By their fruits you shall know them. Terrorists call themselves "the liberation freedom revolutionary yadda yadda" but that doesn't change what they are. You can call your ideas the "always right, can't be disproven" but that doesn't make it so.
47:13 This is hilarious. Russell doesn't see the contradiction in critiquing Hicks's interpretation of postmodern literature. According to postmodernism, any interpretation is just as valid as another, so Hicks's perspective should be fine and accepted without criticism.
MisterChief53 this actually has everything to do with their ideas. Ronald Regan once famously said "the best way to determine the validity of someone's argument is too see how well they are dressed".
@@xtrafranky It is true that the way you dress shows what you believe in, since you are expressing yourself, but I dont really like how some ways to get dressed are considered good or bad. That would just mean that Ronald Regan is bias towards people dressing the way he likes them to be, and I don't find it to be reliable, since most people dress the way society demands in order to gain validity, which in no way shows how good or bad their arguments are. I myself have noticed how dressing in a suit makes people listen to you and take you seriously, but anyone can do the same thing just to gain people's trust.
@@somebodyonce5976 What is 'Something that can only be said by someone who doesn't understand Peterson?'. Peterson doesn't say that and never has. People who don't listen to him repeat that because they can't be bothered to listen (or lack the capability to understand) him. Peterson says the modern left takes points from postmodernism and Marxism. You'll note if you join two things the results is almost never identical with either of the components.
Thaddeus Russell constantly makes disparaging comments about Jordan Peterson. Ha He is jealous of Jordan Peterson who apparently lives rent-free in his brain.
Question: is the claim that "we can never know the truth" itself an absolute claim about truth that is self-invalidating? My head hurts. What is the point of thinking this way?
In fact, Thaddeus hits us with another such unsolvable riddle when he states, "Nothing I say is true." It's the same as the old riddle of the person who tells you, "I am a liar." It's an unsolvable conundrum, nothing to base a life philosophy on.
truth is an absolute claim. if you guys the defenders of reason and the western civilization, get into research you will notice the variety of perspectives/stories which are competing to be the next scientific "fact", the engine of disapproving churns people put their perspectives forward through research , and we eventually get a winner who gets the title of being the "scientific fact" but not for long, the moment another combatant enters the ground the engine begins again. the point is to generate better stories than the one we have , thats why he says nothing i say is true, because its a story woven by Thaddeus, if you got a better story take a shot go through the research maybe your story about some aspect of this world will become the next "scientific fact/truth"
@@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz yeah would you rather be open minded, curious and driven towards learning or would you rather be someone who accepts other peoples stories as absolutes? all of that shit "to destroy reason itself and western society sounds a lot like accepting other peoples stories as absolutes, i dont see anybody asking the question "what is reason" and then going against the grain of your belief, you know falsification, science and reason and what not, its pretty ironic hahahahah
Just to learn about it as an obscure phase in the philosophic history and to tear down their arguments in class. Plus in a worthwhile education you would learn who, what political movements they have influenced and are influencing to this day ...
Post Modernism reminds me of when I was a teenager and we would get stoned and think about deep subjects we had no knowledge of and think we had made great discoveries...…. but in reality we were just stupid stoned kids.
@@rottdogg8926 So you've made a judgement about those texts without having the slightest familiarity with them? That's foolish as hell. You're being played. What Hicks says in his book about postmodernism is BULLS**T, which anyone with a passing familiarity with them would know. If you're too lazy to check to see if HIcks is telling the truth (or if I am) that's fine, just admit it and go on, but don't pretend to have a worthwhile opinion if you're completely uninformed. (And don't read this as a wholesale defense of postmodernism, nor a wholesale condemnation. It's an ill-defined set of ideas, but my point is that Hicks is wrong about what HE says about it in his shitty book, which I also have read. Have you?)
Damn 5 minutes in and Russel is already contradicting himself. If we went from a society where all kinds of people were put in asylums when they shouldn't have, to a society where that does not happen anymore, then surely something must have happened right? Something like SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS?
Lol. Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences: PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!!
Skull measurement. Harvard paleontologist, Stephen jay Gould wrote the famous book, the mismeasure of man, 1981. Technically he claimed to be a paleontologist and evolutionist. However, he is another liberal civil rights advocate. Charles darwin, from england just sticks with straight science. In the u.s. Stephen jay Gould was able to arrive at a new form of evolution that aligned with bible studies and civil rights, and crowd acceptance than real science, postmodernism gives him that leeway. Gould's book slammed all previous American scientists for being racist and officially reverted back to be consistent with bible stories and civil rights, thanks postmodernism. Gould was praised by Harvard liberals for his version of an inconvenient truth. Real evolutionary scientists in England saw it as quackery. Finally, a number of more sober researchers spoiled his white scientists bashing orgy. The pointed out that Gould never bothered to actually measure the skulls. In 2011, the original skulls were remeasured. The original measurements were found to be surprisingly accurate. While the English evolutionist maintain integrity in science. The Harvard liberal quack scientist does not allow the truth get in the way of a good story, with a good agenda. Thanks again postmodernism.
And to claim such would make you RaCiSt. Sometimes something can be 90% wrong and still have 10% valuable parts to it. Everyone said it, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
“Its just about being interesting not about being right” I would love to know if he wants bridge engineers to think about truth in the same way, the difference with engineers is that they are instantly faced with the reality of their mistaken perception whereas the consequences of the postmodernist intellectual play themselves out over decades.
I am not a postmodernist or supportive in any way of postmodernism, but just to be clear for the sake of accuracy, this is an irrelevant objection. Postmodernism would say that we can think about bridges in different ways, or what a scientific theory *is* in different ways, it wouldn't say that concrete problems don't have concrete answers or that you can't approach practical problems in a practical way. As an example, two people may be dancing to music, and one may be thinking about the socioeconomic class and message of the people that made it, the other may be thinking about how it functions from a music theory perspective. But they can still dance together.
@@my-spinning-wheel I have to disagree. The postmodernism would ONLY be thinking about power. It's at the root of the entire theory. Whether they can dance or not isn't the issue. The issue is, only one of them wants to tear down every institution because everything is a power hierarchy while not providing anything to replace it with. In other words, it's nothing more than complaining about what other people created while offering a better solution. Again, my point I posted 2 years ago still stands. Postmodernism is what happens when over educated people never leave education and produce anything. They only complain and critique what others have created.
52:40 On motives for fighting the civil war: "We don't know." Quakers in a community where non-violence is sacred were so passionate about freeing slaves, they joined the war, risked ostracism from their own communities to fight. Some became heroes. Others were slaughtered. These were not racist conscripts fighting for the nation state.
Thaddeus even begins as a walking contradiction. How would he care about correcting if he's arguing for or against the motion. Does he understand the announcement given to him? Does he use language to engage and know who he is engaging with? But then he states "it's about being interesting"... does he think "interesting" is a thing? If he wants to follow through without contradiction, why not utter gibberish sounds, or not speak at all and claim to be speaking instead, without verbalizing any claim? His ideas are evil.
at one point he seemed to be saying "i'm a post-modernist but i don't (or perhaps *can't*) operate in the world that way." if you can't live out your beliefs, can you really claim that they are valid?
Nobody said don't worry about what is morally right or wrong? He said that what is right or wrong is determined by people's values, and groups share those values... And That is what everyone does though? Something is wrong because it goes against a value.... And a lot of people might share that interest, so certain norms and rules are just very likely to show up, but that doesn't mean they will remain in that same form forever... Just curious? Is any ideology rooted in the individual synonyous with narcissism to you?
You're a christian right? "How dare people decide their own destiny! It is bestowed upon them by god!". There is a collectivist and tradionalist sentiment I'm sensing here
“Truth doesn’t exist because things change, but also nothing matters. And I think postmodernism and libertarianism will bring about a better and more free future.”
It is funny to witness Thaddeus object to Hick's interpretation of postmodern literature. Under his own theory of postmodernism, any interpretation is just as valid as another. According to this logic, Hick's and Russel's readings are equal in their assertions of truth. If Thaddeus would listen to himself, he would soon find there is no ground he can stand on to criticize Hicks and his understanding of postmodernism. Doing so inherently goes against postmodernism.
@@Blankslate0000 It also doesn't make this clown correct in his interpretation either. Post Modernism directly allows the interpretation that the ideology in and of itself is nothing but a sham using its own positions.
@@bobross9581 Postmodernism isn't an ideology, its more of a lens of analysis. Most of the people grouped into it don't necessarily share the same major ideas. Baudrillard, Foucault, and Derrida are called 'postmodernists' but their ideas don't really point you towards a specific ideology as reading Marxist or Capitalist thinkers would.
No postmodern thinkers says that any interpretation is as good as any other. You can not jump from "there are no absolutes" to this claim. Instead, they say we have to look for good and working stories, stories aligned with our values. So if something does not work, it is not valuable thats all to it. And I would argue we mostly act in this mode anyways today. So I do not get all the enrage about such thinking.
If you think that's what he said, you weren't paying attention. I don't agree with the guy but that's a disingenuous summary of what he said. He says that no one, himself included, has access to absolute truth. And that morals are not absolute, which is no the same thing as saying he has no morals in the sense that morals are the values we base out actions and perception of others on.
@@rottdogg8926 it takes the simplest of minds to think "postmodernism" is "based in lies", when any postmodernist will bluntly and clearly explain their philosophy
I don't know if it's a problem with postmodernism as such, but the problem I find with Thaddeus' answers is that he jumps from the reasonable suggestion that... 'skepticism is warranted, due to the subjective nature of our language and perceptions, and also, because we've been wrong before, it is likely that we are wrong now, and will be wrong again' ...to a conclusion that... 'there is no such thing as objective truth, and we simply cannot know anything.' To hear him talk about dietary advice or the shape of the Earth, it almost sounds like he thinks the the facts actually morph to what people believe the facts to be, at any given time. Skepticism is warranted. Our perceptions and language are subjective. People have been very wrong before, and people are probably very wrong now, and people will probably be very wrong in the future. BUT the definition of having been wrong isn't simply that people believe something different now. We might not have the most absolutely accurate and perfect knowledge about nutrition or the shape of the Earth, but the scientific method is constantly getting us closer. To get closer, or to progress in accuracy, implies there is something to which we can gain a more accurate understanding of. That is the truth. We may never fully grasp the truth. But it exists.
Thaddeus (don't call me doctor) Russell thinks that the soldiers in the civil war had no opinion on the issues, were indifferent and yet were willing to go and die simply for a paycheck.
He also tried to sever the connection between Marxism and postmodernism by relying on individual Marxist opinions as a trump card to Hick's direct quotations of the fathers of postmodernism. Something that doesn't work within the postmodern framework since according to them no one can perceive or communicate truth.
@@hanamlchl Hicks actually misquotes a lot of post modernists, Baudrillard and Deluze and Nieztchean philosophies all specifically reject Marxist thinking. That's important because people like Zizek at times support marxism. That means that essentializing postmodernism as one train of thought is probably way off base .
@@josephwofford8537 It doesn't matter if Hicks misquotes. According to postmodernism, *no one can perceive or communicate truth.* Ergo, there is no way to prove or disprove anything within the framework of postmodernism and everything is "like, just your opinion, dude".
@@hanamlchl post modernism isn't even "one" train of thought. It's a whole lot of different people with a whole lot of different opinions on truth. Some of them think it's real , some of them think it's illusory , some of them have other opinions still .
Science isn't about "truth" at all Mr. Russell. Science is about making useful and testable models of reality. The mere notion of "truth" is a philosophical one, and if you're any sort of philosopher al all you should know you can't just throw the term around, undefined, as if it is a universally agreed upon and trivial axiom.
Thaddeus conflates science with scientism, thus creating a straw-man argument. This is either just sloppy, or disingenuous. Glad Stephen won the vote...he won with sound reason and logic.
Postmodernism itself requires serious doublethink. If you believe that there is no objective truth then the statement "There is no objective truth " is not an objective truth. This would mean that it is just as accurate to say that there is objective truth as it would be to say that there is no objective truth if you truly (except you can't, truly) believe that "There is no objective truth."
Russell has shown very little evidence of being skeptical. He seems religiously positive about many things. I have no idea what his point about "science" is. I have never known a single individual who is NOT skeptical of scientific theories.
The problem with postmodernism is, if you use its logic on itself, you could easily make the argument that it is just as biased and inherently flawed as any other field that it critiques. The ideology is a walking contradiction.
shielded by obtuse rhetoric whilst seeing and rewriting history through a twenty first century only perspective, is what postmodernist stands for. prove me wrong.
I was going to point this out that he sounds like Mac trying to disprove the existence of evolution on It’s Always Sunny. But on that show, they’re making the point satirically.
You caught that too eh? Frankly, his whole argument was the same tired No True Scotsman fallacy that every anti-Petersonite makes about the fundamental incompatibility between Marxism and PoMo. And yet there's Rorty talking about taking down capitalism.
@@clockwerk76 He's a good debater at least, great video :) Err I mean let's see the post modernist...uh, that video is what I perceive as being excellent, but this doesn't mean it is excellent because nothing is absolute and...stuff.
@@Kamidon74 , ha! The sad thing about it, is that PoMo does offer some unique insights into the assumptions built into our language. It's too bad so few seem able to just take the good and drop the rest.
He's ridiculous. How the hell has this guy risen through the ranks? He is a complete charlatan. What annoys me most is how easy these professors go on him when they debate him. They should be spanking his dumb ass into the gutter.
He misunderstands it. Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences: PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!!
37:00 Thaddeus: Hitler got his ideas from american scientists hitler was bad scientists (sience) are bad Me: SMH Also, he affirms "his posture is more common", appealing to the masses... A true postmodern, he's not interestind in truth, but in winning.
1:08:19 "Not very libertarian of you, I must say. Umm, sounds like Minority Report to me, except worse, w-with eugenics added to it. Uh, so, that, yeah..." This is such an infuriating comment and nobody called him on his bullshit. Hicks didn't say anything about eugenics, it was part of the premise of the question. Also, its just childish to mock your opponent's answer to a question without providing your own alternative. That's not something you do if you're debating in good faith. Then again, he said himself he's not interested in truth and just wants to be "interesting". We should call this what it is: childish and vapid.
1000% agreed. The hilarious thing is that Hicks was responding to the craziest, creepiest what if scenario with the S/M future mass murderer demon child....maybe Thad thought the containing ring should have had bumper lanes.
Thaddeus: "we have made mistakes or changed our mind about how things are." Me: "Do you know that absolutely?" Thaddeus: "no." See the absurd contradiction? What Thaddeus is essentially is saying is: I know with absolutely certainty that absolute certainty doesn't exist. Great debate by the way!
If Postmodernism is, as a framework of thinking, is true, then it can be dismissed as easily as everything postmodernism dismisses, If Postmodernism is false, then it can be dismissed anyway.
Thaddeus seems to me to be someone who is perfectly content with issuing hopelessly self-contradictory and self-defeating propositions. His is an unusual worldview to argue with because it explicitly eschews the rules of logical argumentation.
I’ve watched this debate a bunch of times. It is amazing how many contradictions Russell rolls out. His Eugenics argument is hilarious. He never for a moment seems to understand that the things he pretends to bemoan racism, sexism, etc (I don’t for a second think he really cares about these issues; he is a complete charlatan) Nonetheless, science and reason is what over threw the horse shit he cites.
The most consistent postmodernist has always been Foucault because he understood how much of a Nietzschean you had to be to be a postmodernist, which most intellectuals can't. In a sense the best way to understand postmodernism is to understand it as counterculture being an ideology in itself. In other words, a constant attempt to resist definition and to constantly be in a stage of rebellion against the status quo for eternity. In other words, it's adolescence converted into an ideology or anti-philosophy.
@@squatch545 post moderns claim that truth doesn't really exist, that everything is just an interpretation, this is their epistemological claim. The problem is that the claim is self-contradictory, if truth doesn't exist then the statement of "the truth doesn't exist" itself isn't true because the truth doesn't exist so that very statement isn't true which means that truth DOES exist. The natural reply I'd get from a relativist is "logic is just a construct", but the problem is that you need logic ("a = a" and "a =|= not-a") to even be able to say that logic is a construct so it's a performatic contradiction, the human condition is to be logical (even when you misuse logic), it's IMPOSSIBLE to argue otherwise without contracting yourself. Now look at the video, how many times does the post modernist claim the truth when he himself says the truth doesn't exist ? Everytime he says someone was wrong or he's right he's contradicting himself. If your philosophy doesn't claim the truth or worst, denies the existence of truth it's a futile philosophy and absolutely useless.
@@joaogarcia6170 Sorry, but you're going to need a citation and quote for your claim that "post moderns claim that truth doesn't really exist, that everything is just an interpretation"
Its the unknowing house of cards against the postmodern position though. There is no 'right' way to interpret those authors according to postmodernism. So, as usual the postmodernist violates the very 'anything goes' nature of his own position.
I noticed during the course of the lecture when Thaddeus was sitting, that his respiration rate was quite high and his body English was such that he presents as feeling threatened. For example, look at the shirt at he is wearing. It has a pattern on it that makes it easy to see his respiration rate. Very telling. At some points, it looks like he just came back from a run. He crosses one arm across his body and holds it with the other while looking down at the floor and not the speaker. Maybe he is not as comfortable with his position on post modernism as he states. Either that or Stephen Hicks is making a lot more sense and he knows it. And yes, Peterson is right about post-modernism as well. Very right.
Politics of individual liberty existed long before postmodernism came around. In fact, the politics of individual liberty have suffered greatly as a result of postmodernism and its corroding effect on higher education.
Postmodernism and debate do not share the same reality. Since you need facts as proof to argue a point. A postmodernist (contingent fact) by his definition is simply a thing that others (real humans) can choose to interact with, the same way one (actual real person) would interact with an object in reality. Since a postmodernist can both exist and not exist at the same time, you (actual person) can choose to acknowledge the existence of any individual depending on your personal opinion of reality. Therefore, Thaddeus by his definition, lost the debate because it didn't happen.
“Our intuitions and religious institutions lie to us profusely ..... so let’s not believe scientific instruments or consilience of data ....” - Postmodernists
After listening to the entire thing, I think that the tone from the two speakers becomes apparent. Dr. Hicks respects individual rationality and submits questions and speculation to the audience and THAD has the tone of a preacher or the know-it-all who lectures in the quad.
It's hard not to notice Russell's attempts at winning support, not by proving his points but through (attempts at) humor and charisma. Sadly for him he failed and the biggest laugh went to Hicks. "I was waiting for the applause". Beautiful
Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences: PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!! beautifully stupid.
54:40 I give credit to Thad for stating that he doesn't believe in morality. He states that it's arrogant to claim that something applies to all people at all times. I wonder why he thinks that people shouldn't be arrogant. Maybe that's just one of his values. Is it arrogant to tell others not to be arrogant?
Post-modernism - narcissistic naval gazing. This is what a generation of kids have been taught. They have never been taught the ability to critically analyse. Worse than this, they have been taught that critical analysis is a destructive concept. I fear for the future, I really do.
It is a problem that we have to spend energy debating with these people. Imagine if we had to argue with flat earthers every time we sent a satellite into space?
Kudos to Stephen Hicks for putting up with 30 minutes of incoherent blabbering from a guy who say stories hold more emprical validity than actual scientific findings on the fundamental nature and laws of the universe. Whenever Russell opens his mouth contradictions spew in every direction, he is so deep and entrenched in his own BS it makes the Marianas Trench look like a damn puddle.
Stephen Hicks dominated this debate from start to end, there are things that are true no matter what you believe in which is even demonstrated by Dr Russel by actually using words to try to argue his case. Because if nothing is true his own belief is also not true, and he should not argue his position if he believes in it.
I enjoyed listening to this debate. Steven Hicks is very powerful in putting forward viable arguments. What is conspicuous in postmodernists is that they are saturated with performative contradictions. On the one hand they enjoy the results of science in terms of medical advancement, technological progress and so forth, but on the other they try to undermine and belittle it by calling into question its foundation. They reject reason as a tool to understand reality, but it is this reason that led to science.
Most of the really clever Pomo thinkers are smart enough to couch their words in terms that help them avoid seeming to make a blatantly silly self-refuting argument. Thaddeus is not one of those people.
The postmodernist convinced me that postmodernists should be thrown in a asylums
:)) And they should be told "This isn't a real asylum and you're not really being punished"
I have a feeling Thaddeus Russell would rest his case
😂😂😂
@@earofheaven1125 I join you in laughing my mate! Cheers & mabuhay from tropical Philippines!
Or out of helicopters on short rides.
"The shape of the earth keeps changing according to science"
The shape has never changed, scientific understanding of the shape has changed, but earth's shape was always the same.
A postmodernist could subvert this to "so the multiple genders always existed and it's our understanding of them that changed" for example to justify their views.
@Ernestine clearly we are on the same side and you articulated my point. I used the gender example but it happens with other areas as can currently be seen. They start with ideas that aren't wrong and point the blind spots in current ideas (most blind spots are said ideas' inherent vice as in example capitalism and inequality). That gives them a foot in the door, once inside they stretch their idea ad absurdum (well past the point they are sensible and justifiable) always using the other's flaw as justification and validation to encroach further.
@@MrReubenTishkoff spot on, both of you. Good to season reason, logic and truth prevail, esp. on the internet.
I get your point. But didn't the Earth start unrecognizable to what it is today and then (Thru a lot of spinning and being hit by stuff) become the spud shape it is today and in the future may become spherical. 'You spin me right round, baby, right round. King...
How can you know?
"I never speak the truth. I am telling stories."
That is as good a reason as any to ignore you.
MJBull515 Exactly! As I said elsewhere: A regular conman couldn’t get away with revealing his fraud to you up front in this way. In this regard, and in this regard only, postmodernism is truly exceptional!
Monkey Master You are very confused. Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to begin your rehabilitation. I believe in you (even if you don’t believe in anything, ya goddamned POMO!).
@@sybo59 read an intro book about Cognitive Psychology and Neuroscience then get back to me.
The schizophrenic experiences the hallucination, but is it real?
Gsak As you know, this is not the place for a comprehensive treatise, yet that’s exactly what’s needed for one to gain real understanding of such complex subjects. A nudge here can be enough. I’ve certainly benefitted from that kind of thing.
zap rowsdower I wasn’t talking to you. But no, while it’s true someone is experiencing a hallucination, it is not real in the sense that it corresponds to external reality.
"post-modernism doesn't care about being right or wrong"
"medical scientists were wrong" as opening statement.
(as he responds to Hicks's slavery provocation)
"I never say anything true" ... then runs in circles with the best of any wheel-running laboratory mouse regarding slavery.
non-sensical jibbering .... what a great technique of debate.
Steve Smiff Glad it’s not just me that struggled with following this ‘blathering and overly emotional teenager’ approach to argumentation! It didn’t even reach the level of Gish-galloping. I maintain that Russell is on some sort of acid trip here. Totally nonsensical!
@@echo1174
1. One Google search shows you that scientific breakthroughs can happen at Universities
www.bu.edu/articles/2019/12-scientific-breakthroughs-2019/
2. Ur wrong about the development of the idea of race. Britannica says that race began it's development as an idea in the 15th century during European invasions of other places and colonialism.
3. The whole idea that truth is fact is what postmodernism debates , we understand that facts exist, but truth claims are relative bc they do change whereas facts don't . Postmodernism tries not to make totalizing truth claims.
He "clarifies" by saying he is working within a modernist framework.
So he is forced to say something is true or false.
Don't understand how that makes sense.
Postmodernism is an excuse for manipulativeness in conversation, and even tyranny. When there's no truth, discourse is just an exercise in winning. The existence of truth adds a guidepost to the mix that reduces the personal aspect of the debate, so that it's not just a power-trip.
-- Sure, the process of representation entails some distortion, but if one employs the systems of representation with consistency and good faith, one can arrive at representations that enable rockets, smartphones, and brain surgery. Objective truth doesn't have to be absolute truth to *work.*
-- Another problem with postmodernism is that in time, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For postmodernists, there's no truth, and hence no representation of reality for them to hold onto, and they become detached from reality. People who are surrounded by a lot of postmodernists should take note of how many of them are mentally ill. Postmodernism pushes postmodernists toward becoming not only manipulative jerks, but insane manipulative jerks.
Stephen Hicks exists, and Thaddeus Russell doesn't. Stephen wins.
Brilliant
what an idiotic comment.
@@whateva1983 I'm only seeing one idiot here, sport, and it's you.
@@zeenuf00 stick to playing the bass
@@acex222 great argument from the low IQ section lol!!
Michael malice put it best on his recent pod with Thaddeus. Postmodernism is college stoner talk.
That was a rough 24 hours for Thad.
fuck, that part had me laughing
Hooray for Mike Malice! What a Mensch he is. Just love him.
If you kick around ideas for the first time as a stoned teenager who rebels against the group testing their own values system you do what the guy in the greeb polo does. For most people reality Hicks in when they start living and creating and stop smokin
"Like… How can we know anything's even real, man?! It's all just what society wants you to think."
"I never speak the truth, I'm telling stories"
If Thaddeus thinks he's just playing around with his own ideas, then that's fine, he can live in his own solipsist world. His whole argument is a glaring non sequitur to move from "we have made mistakes or changed our mind about how things are" to "we can never know what things are." Thad mistakes a "universal" and "eternal" Platonic conception of truth and assumes that since omniscience is impossible, then any truth must be impossible. It is a quite banal argument really.
The universe is very complex and the fact is there is a lot we don't know. To know the absolute truth of something, you need to know everything about it that is relevant, because even that one little thing you *don't know* could dramatically alter how you perceive that thing, which would change not the truth, but the story of it. It can be difficult to accept that finding truth could be impossible, but ask yourself, why do you find it necessary to label things as the truth? We have to learn to live in a world where we might only be 99.9% certain of something, instead of 100%. If your less than 100% certain, you have a story, not the truth. Keep in mind though, that stories are very useful and instrumental.
@@Jimraynor45 Omniscience is not a standard for knowledge. This is what Demsetz referred to as the "Nirvana fallacy." It just plain does not follow that because we don't have an instant 100% grasp of reality to not having any knowledge of reality. Human knowledge is achieved in pieces, step by step, and thus need not be regarded as a static, instant, "universal" and "eternal" revelation.
@@2046-b2o It is if you want to claim your knowledge represents objective truth. Just because I discovered something, or found some knowledge does not mean I've discovered the "truth." Now, there is the off chance that the things we've discovered are in fact absolute truth, but unless we have omniscience, than we will remain less than 100% certain we have. The key is acknowledging what we don't know, but the problem is we don't know what we don't know!!! So long as this is the case, we can never be 100% certain about the truth of something, as uncomfortable as an idea that may be.
@@Jimraynor45 Since _that_ kind of "objectivity" (a 100% instant, omniscient grasp) is a fantasy, it is neither needed or desired. It serves only as a convenient Platonic straw man for you to knock over.
It's not nice to put wrong words in people's mouths
I went to grad school in literature. All I read was French postmodern philosophy. Why???? I’ve read all that Peterson supposedly hasn’t and it doesn’t change that he’s right about it.
Peterson? You mean hicks...
@4browsing ok. I thought Mr. Guy mistyped
Yeah this guy obviously has a hard-on for Peterson. But that doesn't mean to Peterson was wrong
He's 100% right about it.
The tragedy that even Derrida warned people of the implications of Deconstruction is probably the most revealing aspect of how dangerous postmodernism can be.
I also agree with Russell that classical Marxism is incompatible with PM, but the fact that many PMs consider themselves Marxists should tell you something about one or perhaps both of those ideologies.
It's just Marxism without the teleology (namely the inevitably thesis of communism), and expanded beyond economics to include race, gender, culture, etc. Marxism is very much the starting influence of the postmodernists, as evidenced by Russell himself as he said he used to be one, among other postmodern colleagues.
@@TheGoobsters "used to be one" is the key point. Postmodernism eventually turns people away from Marxism.
The fact that it is hard to tell the difference between a Postmodernist and a Marxist without them self identifying is also interesting.
@@woodchuck003 it's not hard, if you have a basic understanding of what constitutes postmodernism and a basic understanding of that which constitutes Marxism
@@acex222 on a long enough timeline you are correct. But in short bursts the are both going to talk shit about free markets. Difference a Marxists will blame the bourgeoisie, well the postmodernist would blame the patreocy or White people.
Reasoned Thinking vs. Quasi-intellectual Slam Poetry: The Debate
Lol this is the perfect description
Fridgemagnet that.
@AnarchoRepublican Oh, T. Russ all the way. For all his faults, he seems like he'd be a good trip sitter.
At the very end he's literally doing a slam poetry set. It's fucking hilarious.
@AnarchoRepublican i think Thad might be very unhinged on acid...
Russell: "Jordan Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about! Grrr, Jordan Peterson, grrrr!"
Russell: *proceeds to validate exactly what Peterson says about Post-modernism*
Monk. - You are right
Well no, Thaddeus is wrong about post modernists, so he cannot approach validating what post modernism is... Where the hell are we all going...
I'm sad that people including Jordan Peterson (which I highly respect) have fallen to this slandering view of postmodernism Stephen Hicks is proposing.
Jordan Peterson is a very intelligent man but I truly believe his only source on postmodernism is Stephen Hicks (a very unreliable source). if he actually read postmodernist literature, I bet he would be surprised how much of a postmodernist he himself is (with the hierarchy of competence and all that).
postmodernism is not relativistic in nature (Derrida made it clear on that), postmodernism is not identity politics, postmodernism heavily criticized marxism, and all Stephen Hicks.
I always say this but Stephen Hicks is to postmodernism what Cathy Newman was to JBP.
How does he "proceed to validate exactly what Peterson says"??
@james sc Encyclopedia Britannica, often forgotten but more reliable than Wikipedia (think about it, article authors and editors have to put their name to it creating accountability for misinformation or disinformation.
Russell employs every bad debating tactic in the book: straw man, appeal to emotion, reframing, conflation - intellectual weasel.
He doesn't believe that there are good or bad debating tactics.
Examples please....?
intellectual weasel. Agreed
@@squatch545 Saying Science and Reason are responsible for Vietnam and Napalm etc as if these are not universally bad ideas, only relatively bad
Because hes an idiot
Electroshock therapy became ECT, and ECT saved my life. Science does improve and get better. But only if you avoid the idiocy of postmodernism.
Improvement of humanity and time are synonymous
Following the pleasure principle: What pleasure does one gain in making others agree with you and hence, act like you?
That was the very first one that really pissed me off. Electroshock is a very useful, and valid form of treatment. Ignoring the fact that he lied about almost everything he said to a large extent, the fact that he would bring up electroshock as some form of quack medicine just put on full display how grotesquely ignorant he is.
I have never had ect but I know ppl that work in mental hospitals and they all say ect can be extremely effective for deep depression. I just looked really bad in the 1950s coz they did sedate the patient.
So he lost me at 4.30. If u are going to be debating at such a high level you can't have gaffs like that, you should just be run off stage.
@Samuel Spector Fair enough 😂
Postmodernism: Nothing is true except for everything I say.
Exactly.
No post modernist has said this or if they did the tongue if firmly planted in the cheek. Also, Warhol’s whole career was exploring art in a post - modern area. He was a post modernist.
Matthayi Naalaaman yes, definitely skepticism. As Russell says, like all scientists, post modernists must be sceptical.
Matthayi Naalaaman the point is stories are not ‘just’ stories, it recognises how history can be told by different involved parties and have very different narratives. Neither are wrong by their telling. He uses the word ‘stories’ or ‘narrative’ in response to the modernist view being debated which tries to tell us there is a universal and objective truth. The post modernist would this world view as a story amongst many. The story is the post modern ‘truth’ in the sense that it can have many authors and is ever developing and being revised, always in flux and changing and often requires a listening to the other voices/characters not heard.
@@Bc2ast -- There have been plenty of skeptics around since the pre-Socratics. In modern times, Descartes began his Meditations with methodological doubt, and as Heidegger recognized, virtually invented the concept of subjectivity. Locke's Essay included a bunch of skeptical considerations, and his argument for religious toleration is based on assertions about our inability to possess absolute truth. Locke based his argument for religious toleration on our incapacity to possess absolute truth. And so on, and so on, and so on. Thad's history of truth is a straw man. He speaks as if everyone who has ever argued for a traditional notion of truth was an absolutist, and that no one prior to postmodernism was capable of doubt intellectual nuance.
-- If you read serious works of philosophy, like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Newton, Kant, Husserl, Wittgenstein, et al, you can discern a sense of serious, good-faith inquiry in their works. Most postmodernists read like flippant, arrogant illusionists.
-- When there's no such thing as truth, human discourse devolves into an exercise in manipulating interlocutors. It becomes an exercise in ego and power. And look at what it does to its recipients: huge quantities of them turn out to be intolerant SJWs, who behave just as much as absolutists as Medieval inquisitors.
There is an old saying that you can tell alot about a tree by the fruit that it bears. Post-modernism, correctly applied or not, is producing a bumper crop of collectivists and would be authoritarians.
Thad would claim those are not actual post modernists. They are religious in nature and post-modernism is inherently non-religious because there are no truth claims. That's what he'd say, anyway.
Authoritarian collectivism.....the most rotten fruit of all.
What is an authoritarian? I take it to mean someone who believes truth and right comes from power, and therefore the person in the position of the most power is the most right, likewise, the person who is the most right should be in the most power for authoritarianism to be effective. This is the un-democratic principle of giving more tools of governance to a particular voting block to ensure that the election cannot swing the other way, or justifying breaking norms on the basis that the transgressor is "right" to ignore norms because they are more correct than their predecessors.
What is a collectivist? I take it to mean someone who thinks that power comes through consensus and shared resources. A collectivist believes that one man alone has very little liberty, since they can only act as far as their own resources can influence their sphere. But finding a larger group of like-minded people, they can pool effort and resources, and then establish a larger sphere of influence, securing liberty for more. This is antithetical to an individualist's understanding of liberty, but then again...
What is an individualist? I take it to mean someone who believes that a person can only be truly free if unconstrained by the influence of others, and that when engaging in a society, they should not allow others to pressure them economically, dogmatically, or with physical force.
I take it that many watchers of Reason are self-identified individualists, and would pride themselves on their ability to shake off the influence of any group as soon as they disagree. But I would also take it that collectivists and individualists can both be Authoritarians.
A collectivist authoritarian would think because their block is the most correct, that they should be given the most political power. This could be considered one-party rule
An individualist authoritarian would believe that they are the most right, and therefore they should have more control over their life than any societal influences. This could be considered an anarchist, or at least a solipsist.
I reject authoritarianism on the basis that I do not believe that power makes someone more correct. I believe that truth comes from common understandings, dialogue, examination of the world, and that it is mutable. Essentially, though, I do not believe that political power should be given up to someone or some group just because they are right for now, because inevitably, they won't be right forever, and then they will be wrong and powerful.
And yes I'm a self identified postmodernist SJW.
By their fruits you shall know them. Terrorists call themselves "the liberation freedom revolutionary yadda yadda" but that doesn't change what they are. You can call your ideas the "always right, can't be disproven" but that doesn't make it so.
What about a Pineapple tree? This only gives off one single fruit. The Pineapple...
47:13
This is hilarious. Russell doesn't see the contradiction in critiquing Hicks's interpretation of postmodern literature. According to postmodernism, any interpretation is just as valid as another, so Hicks's perspective should be fine and accepted without criticism.
He's smart enough to know, in that form, his position is toast. He's hoping people don't see the contradiction.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
@@jeffmaehre7150 Nice Rebuttal.
@@jeffmaehre7150 you fking coward you cant even make an argument.
Stephen was OBJECTIVELY better dressed than Thaddeus.
I dont think that has anything to do with their ideas
@@misterchief5378 whoosh...
@@DaveS859 saw it comming, but I dont regret anything
MisterChief53 this actually has everything to do with their ideas. Ronald Regan once famously said "the best way to determine the validity of someone's argument is too see how well they are dressed".
@@xtrafranky It is true that the way you dress shows what you believe in, since you are expressing yourself, but I dont really like how some ways to get dressed are considered good or bad. That would just mean that Ronald Regan is bias towards people dressing the way he likes them to be, and I don't find it to be reliable, since most people dress the way society demands in order to gain validity, which in no way shows how good or bad their arguments are. I myself have noticed how dressing in a suit makes people listen to you and take you seriously, but anyone can do the same thing just to gain people's trust.
Hey look, a relativist making absolute claims! Lol
"You were burned at the stake if you didn't believe the earth was flat."
OK, I would ignore anything this man has to say about history.
Well Thad is a PM so by his own belief nothing he says is true, so.....
He says everyone believed one thing then everyone believed another. I don't think at any time in history has everyone believed any one thing.
He explicitly stated that he isn’t saying anything true, he’s just telling stories. So...
"You were burned at the stake if you didn't believe the earth was flat."
'And therefore, there's no such thing as an absolute truth.'
Pomo reasoning.
hahahahahah nice someone who knows something
Listening to Thaddeus is torture
Thaddeus Russel validates everything Jordan Peterson says about postmodernism
Oh. That means Thaddeus Russel is full of s**t, too.
Good to know. Thanks.
I think you misunderstood.
Jordan Peterson thinks postmodernism is Marxism so why should I take him seriously on anything about it?
@@somebodyonce5976 What is 'Something that can only be said by someone who doesn't understand Peterson?'.
Peterson doesn't say that and never has. People who don't listen to him repeat that because they can't be bothered to listen (or lack the capability to understand) him. Peterson says the modern left takes points from postmodernism and Marxism. You'll note if you join two things the results is almost never identical with either of the components.
Russell is a terrible salesman for a terrible pseudo philosophy •
Thaddeus Russell constantly makes disparaging comments about Jordan Peterson. Ha He is jealous of Jordan Peterson who apparently lives rent-free in his brain.
Peterson is a pseudo-intellectual fraud, just like Hicks: ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
Or you know he just disagrees with him.
He knows that JP and SH are buddies, and that JP has done a lot to promote SH's book.
Thaddeus sounds like my son who just took a class in post modernism at our community college.
Question: is the claim that "we can never know the truth" itself an absolute claim about truth that is self-invalidating? My head hurts. What is the point of thinking this way?
To destroy reason itself, and therefore the foundations of Western civilization.
In fact, Thaddeus hits us with another such unsolvable riddle when he states, "Nothing I say is true." It's the same as the old riddle of the person who tells you, "I am a liar." It's an unsolvable conundrum, nothing to base a life philosophy on.
truth is an absolute claim. if you guys the defenders of reason and the western civilization, get into research you will notice the variety of perspectives/stories which are competing to be the next scientific "fact", the engine of disapproving churns people put their perspectives forward through research , and we eventually get a winner who gets the title of being the "scientific fact" but not for long, the moment another combatant enters the ground the engine begins again.
the point is to generate better stories than the one we have , thats why he says nothing i say is true, because its a story woven by Thaddeus, if you got a better story take a shot go through the research maybe your story about some aspect of this world will become the next "scientific fact/truth"
@@fukkyouthatswhy congrats, you just described learning.
@@L0rd0fTh3N3rdz yeah would you rather be open minded, curious and driven towards learning or would you rather be someone who accepts other peoples stories as absolutes?
all of that shit "to destroy reason itself and western society sounds a lot like accepting other peoples stories as absolutes, i dont see anybody asking the question "what is reason" and then going against the grain of your belief, you know falsification, science and reason and what not, its pretty ironic hahahahah
Need postmodernism? For what?
toilet paper
@@benjaminstorace6699 but is that true toilet paper? Does one really need to wipe? Just because people wipe now, will that always be true?
Just to learn about it as an obscure phase in the philosophic history and to tear down their arguments in class.
Plus in a worthwhile education you would learn who, what political movements they have influenced and are influencing to this day ...
Utopia!
whatever you want!
Post Modernism reminds me of when I was a teenager and we would get stoned and think about deep subjects we had no knowledge of and think we had made great discoveries...….
but in reality we were just stupid stoned kids.
Did you actually read any books by authors who are known as postmodern? Were you stoned when you read them?
@@ntodd4110 If I was stoned I might have been impaired enough that they may have actually seemed half intelligent, but I prefer to live in reality.
@@rottdogg8926 So you've made a judgement about those texts without having the slightest familiarity with them? That's foolish as hell. You're being played. What Hicks says in his book about postmodernism is BULLS**T, which anyone with a passing familiarity with them would know. If you're too lazy to check to see if HIcks is telling the truth (or if I am) that's fine, just admit it and go on, but don't pretend to have a worthwhile opinion if you're completely uninformed. (And don't read this as a wholesale defense of postmodernism, nor a wholesale condemnation. It's an ill-defined set of ideas, but my point is that Hicks is wrong about what HE says about it in his shitty book, which I also have read. Have you?)
@@ntodd4110 What's wrong with his book?
Actually I know people who wrote publishable papers in an hour while stoned.
Save the debate; the short answer is no.
But you'll learn so much from Hicks.
Damn 5 minutes in and Russel is already contradicting himself. If we went from a society where all kinds of people were put in asylums when they shouldn't have, to a society where that does not happen anymore, then surely something must have happened right? Something like SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS?
Stephen Hicks is great.
Hicks is a pseudo-intellectual fraud: ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
Lol. Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences:
PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!!
Turns out, bone measurements are used in today's forensics to determine the race of skeletons
Gender and whether birth had been given is determined by....
yhh turns out thousands of years of divergent evolution restults in genetic differences, who would have known?!?! jajajajajaj
Skull measurement. Harvard paleontologist, Stephen jay Gould wrote the famous book, the mismeasure of man, 1981. Technically he claimed to be a paleontologist and evolutionist. However, he is another liberal civil rights advocate. Charles darwin, from england just sticks with straight science. In the u.s. Stephen jay Gould was able to arrive at a new form of evolution that aligned with bible studies and civil rights, and crowd acceptance than real science, postmodernism gives him that leeway. Gould's book slammed all previous American scientists for being racist and officially reverted back to be consistent with bible stories and civil rights, thanks postmodernism. Gould was praised by Harvard liberals for his version of an inconvenient truth. Real evolutionary scientists in England saw it as quackery. Finally, a number of more sober researchers spoiled his white scientists bashing orgy. The pointed out that Gould never bothered to actually measure the skulls. In 2011, the original skulls were remeasured. The original measurements were found to be surprisingly accurate. While the English evolutionist maintain integrity in science. The Harvard liberal quack scientist does not allow the truth get in the way of a good story, with a good agenda. Thanks again postmodernism.
And to claim such would make you RaCiSt. Sometimes something can be 90% wrong and still have 10% valuable parts to it. Everyone said it, throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Gotta love it
“Its just about being interesting not about being right” I would love to know if he wants bridge engineers to think about truth in the same way, the difference with engineers is that they are instantly faced with the reality of their mistaken perception whereas the consequences of the postmodernist intellectual play themselves out over decades.
He said he is a career Marxist, with no shame. Oh, my God.
Yes, fucking exactly.
@@seanleith5312 the only reaction from the crowd was a sneeze. 🤣
I am not a postmodernist or supportive in any way of postmodernism, but just to be clear for the sake of accuracy, this is an irrelevant objection. Postmodernism would say that we can think about bridges in different ways, or what a scientific theory *is* in different ways, it wouldn't say that concrete problems don't have concrete answers or that you can't approach practical problems in a practical way. As an example, two people may be dancing to music, and one may be thinking about the socioeconomic class and message of the people that made it, the other may be thinking about how it functions from a music theory perspective. But they can still dance together.
@@my-spinning-wheel I have to disagree. The postmodernism would ONLY be thinking about power. It's at the root of the entire theory. Whether they can dance or not isn't the issue. The issue is, only one of them wants to tear down every institution because everything is a power hierarchy while not providing anything to replace it with. In other words, it's nothing more than complaining about what other people created while offering a better solution. Again, my point I posted 2 years ago still stands. Postmodernism is what happens when over educated people never leave education and produce anything. They only complain and critique what others have created.
52:40 On motives for fighting the civil war: "We don't know." Quakers in a community where non-violence is sacred were so passionate about freeing slaves, they joined the war, risked ostracism from their own communities to fight. Some became heroes. Others were slaughtered. These were not racist conscripts fighting for the nation state.
But but Thad is a historian!
Thank you. Too many revisionists are trying remove slavery from Civil War history.
@@sanniepstein4835it's insane. The civil war was fought over slavery and the rights of states to decide if they were slaveholding or not.
Thaddeus even begins as a walking contradiction. How would he care about correcting if he's arguing for or against the motion.
Does he understand the announcement given to him? Does he use language to engage and know who he is engaging with? But then he states "it's about being interesting"... does he think "interesting" is a thing?
If he wants to follow through without contradiction, why not utter gibberish sounds, or not speak at all and claim to be speaking instead, without verbalizing any claim?
His ideas are evil.
Oh, because there isn't truth, you see, but he acts as if it's true within the framework he... it's all a bunch of horseshit.
post modernism is nothing new it’s just munchhausen trilemma all over again
at one point he seemed to be saying "i'm a post-modernist but i don't (or perhaps *can't*) operate in the world that way." if you can't live out your beliefs, can you really claim that they are valid?
Stephen Hicks dominated this debate.
Narcissism defined quite clearly:
"don't worry about what is morally right or wrong. Just pursue your values".
That and sociopathic.
Nobody said don't worry about what is morally right or wrong? He said that what is right or wrong is determined by people's values, and groups share those values... And That is what everyone does though? Something is wrong because it goes against a value.... And a lot of people might share that interest, so certain norms and rules are just very likely to show up, but that doesn't mean they will remain in that same form forever... Just curious? Is any ideology rooted in the individual synonyous with narcissism to you?
You're a christian right? "How dare people decide their own destiny! It is bestowed upon them by god!". There is a collectivist and tradionalist sentiment I'm sensing here
Not really
That's individualistic. The very opposite of what Hicks claimed that Post Modernism is.
“Truth doesn’t exist because things change, but also nothing matters. And I think postmodernism and libertarianism will bring about a better and more free future.”
It is funny to witness Thaddeus object to Hick's interpretation of postmodern literature. Under his own theory of postmodernism, any interpretation is just as valid as another. According to this logic, Hick's and Russel's readings are equal in their assertions of truth. If Thaddeus would listen to himself, he would soon find there is no ground he can stand on to criticize Hicks and his understanding of postmodernism. Doing so inherently goes against postmodernism.
Believing there are infinite interpretations to text doesnt mean you also have to believe each is equally valid
@@Blankslate0000 It also doesn't make this clown correct in his interpretation either. Post Modernism directly allows the interpretation that the ideology in and of itself is nothing but a sham using its own positions.
@@bobross9581 Postmodernism isn't an ideology, its more of a lens of analysis. Most of the people grouped into it don't necessarily share the same major ideas. Baudrillard, Foucault, and Derrida are called 'postmodernists' but their ideas don't really point you towards a specific ideology as reading Marxist or Capitalist thinkers would.
@@Blankslate0000 >Postmodernism isn't an ideology.
Do you legitimately have brain damage or something?
No postmodern thinkers says that any interpretation is as good as any other. You can not jump from "there are no absolutes" to this claim. Instead, they say we have to look for good and working stories, stories aligned with our values. So if something does not work, it is not valuable thats all to it. And I would argue we mostly act in this mode anyways today. So I do not get all the enrage about such thinking.
This is such a mask-off discussion I love it. Basically this guy admits that all he does is lie and has no morals lmao.
If you think that's what he said, you weren't paying attention. I don't agree with the guy but that's a disingenuous summary of what he said. He says that no one, himself included, has access to absolute truth. And that morals are not absolute, which is no the same thing as saying he has no morals in the sense that morals are the values we base out actions and perception of others on.
Thanks to these guys for warning us about THEIR OWN manipulation of language to tell lies.
@rkb100100 Where does Hicks make this point?
It takes a simple mind to not see that Post Modernism has it's foundation in lies.
@@rottdogg8926 it takes the simplest of minds to think "postmodernism" is "based in lies", when any postmodernist will bluntly and clearly explain their philosophy
@@acex222 Uh huh...so tell me again about all the people who were burned at the stake by flat earthers?
I am a postmodernist and everything we say is a lie now hear my truth, I thought the comedy act was only during the warmup.
I don't know if it's a problem with postmodernism as such, but the problem I find with Thaddeus' answers is that he jumps from the reasonable suggestion that...
'skepticism is warranted, due to the subjective nature of our language and perceptions, and also, because we've been wrong before, it is likely that we are wrong now, and will be wrong again'
...to a conclusion that...
'there is no such thing as objective truth, and we simply cannot know anything.' To hear him talk about dietary advice or the shape of the Earth, it almost sounds like he thinks the the facts actually morph to what people believe the facts to be, at any given time.
Skepticism is warranted. Our perceptions and language are subjective. People have been very wrong before, and people are probably very wrong now, and people will probably be very wrong in the future. BUT the definition of having been wrong isn't simply that people believe something different now. We might not have the most absolutely accurate and perfect knowledge about nutrition or the shape of the Earth, but the scientific method is constantly getting us closer. To get closer, or to progress in accuracy, implies there is something to which we can gain a more accurate understanding of. That is the truth. We may never fully grasp the truth. But it exists.
Thaddeus (don't call me doctor) Russell thinks that the soldiers in the civil war had no opinion on the issues, were indifferent and yet were willing to go and die simply for a paycheck.
He also tried to sever the connection between Marxism and postmodernism by relying on individual Marxist opinions as a trump card to Hick's direct quotations of the fathers of postmodernism. Something that doesn't work within the postmodern framework since according to them no one can perceive or communicate truth.
@@hanamlchl Hicks actually misquotes a lot of post modernists, Baudrillard and Deluze and Nieztchean philosophies all specifically reject Marxist thinking. That's important because people like Zizek at times support marxism. That means that essentializing postmodernism as one train of thought is probably way off base .
@@josephwofford8537 It doesn't matter if Hicks misquotes. According to postmodernism, *no one can perceive or communicate truth.* Ergo, there is no way to prove or disprove anything within the framework of postmodernism and everything is "like, just your opinion, dude".
@@hanamlchl post modernism isn't even "one" train of thought. It's a whole lot of different people with a whole lot of different opinions on truth. Some of them think it's real , some of them think it's illusory , some of them have other opinions still .
@@josephwofford8537 Your entire reply is encapsulated in by my closing line - "that's like, just your opinion dude".
Foucault died thinking that AIDS is a social construct.
Russel borrowed the t-shirt from Zizek.
I wish this debate borrowed the whole Zizek and trashed this clown
He didn't even clean the mustard off.
AHAHA! Brilliant observation
The beauty about post modernist is that they’ve also mastered the art of gaslighting..
Science isn't about "truth" at all Mr. Russell. Science is about making useful and testable models of reality.
The mere notion of "truth" is a philosophical one, and if you're any sort of philosopher al all you should know you can't just throw the term around, undefined, as if it is a universally agreed upon and trivial axiom.
And then he conflates "truth-claim" and "truth"...yikes.
Thaddeus conflates science with scientism, thus creating a straw-man argument. This is either just sloppy, or disingenuous. Glad Stephen won the vote...he won with sound reason and logic.
Postmodernism itself requires serious doublethink. If you believe that there is no objective truth then the statement "There is no objective truth " is not an objective truth. This would mean that it is just as accurate to say that there is objective truth as it would be to say that there is no objective truth if you truly (except you can't, truly) believe that "There is no objective truth."
Russell has shown very little evidence of being skeptical. He seems religiously positive about many things. I have no idea what his point about "science" is. I have never known a single individual who is NOT skeptical of scientific theories.
The guy wearing T-shirt should be automatically disqualified. What a disgrace.
The problem with postmodernism is, if you use its logic on itself, you could easily make the argument that it is just as biased and inherently flawed as any other field that it critiques. The ideology is a walking contradiction.
shielded by obtuse rhetoric whilst seeing and rewriting history through a twenty first century only perspective, is what postmodernist stands for. prove me wrong.
This guy sounds like Mac from It's Always Sunny.
"Science is a liar....... sometimes!"
randomutubr222 I thought the exact same thing lol.
I was going to point this out that he sounds like Mac trying to disprove the existence of evolution on It’s Always Sunny. But on that show, they’re making the point satirically.
I was looking for this comment lol
49:00 Postmodernist side makes the "we've never tried real postmodernism" argument. lol
You caught that too eh? Frankly, his whole argument was the same tired No True Scotsman fallacy that every anti-Petersonite makes about the fundamental incompatibility between Marxism and PoMo. And yet there's Rorty talking about taking down capitalism.
@@clockwerk76 He's a good debater at least, great video :)
Err I mean let's see the post modernist...uh, that video is what I perceive as being excellent, but this doesn't mean it is excellent because nothing is absolute and...stuff.
@@Kamidon74 , ha! The sad thing about it, is that PoMo does offer some unique insights into the assumptions built into our language. It's too bad so few seem able to just take the good and drop the rest.
Thaddeus is just nuts.
He's ridiculous. How the hell has this guy risen through the ranks? He is a complete charlatan. What annoys me most is how easy these professors go on him when they debate him. They should be spanking his dumb ass into the gutter.
That's a deep analysis. You must be one of those intellectuals.
@@joelkeane3160 We could say the same thing about Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks.
You can tell a philosophy is dishonest when it demonizes anything that could dispute it's acceptance.
Dr. Hicks starts with an accurate diagnosis of the body of postmodernism.
He misunderstands it.
Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences:
PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!!
37:00
Thaddeus:
Hitler got his ideas from american scientists
hitler was bad
scientists (sience) are bad
Me: SMH
Also, he affirms "his posture is more common", appealing to the masses...
A true postmodern, he's not interestind in truth, but in winning.
The mental gymnastics it takes to be a postmodernist is not worth your time if you plan to actually contribute something useful to humanity.
1:08:19 "Not very libertarian of you, I must say. Umm, sounds like Minority Report to me, except worse, w-with eugenics added to it. Uh, so, that, yeah..."
This is such an infuriating comment and nobody called him on his bullshit. Hicks didn't say anything about eugenics, it was part of the premise of the question. Also, its just childish to mock your opponent's answer to a question without providing your own alternative. That's not something you do if you're debating in good faith. Then again, he said himself he's not interested in truth and just wants to be "interesting". We should call this what it is: childish and vapid.
1000% agreed. The hilarious thing is that Hicks was responding to the craziest, creepiest what if scenario with the S/M future mass murderer demon child....maybe Thad thought the containing ring should have had bumper lanes.
Thaddeus: "we have made mistakes or changed our mind about how things are."
Me: "Do you know that absolutely?"
Thaddeus: "no."
See the absurd contradiction? What Thaddeus is essentially is saying is: I know with absolutely certainty that absolute certainty doesn't exist.
Great debate by the way!
Russell: "It's about being interesting, not about being right..." Turned the video off right then and there.
1:01:00.TR: "There ARE no settled questions." Whew. Well, thank God we've settled THAT question! 😂
You clearly don't know what settled means.
If Postmodernism is, as a framework of thinking, is true, then it can be dismissed as easily as everything postmodernism dismisses, If Postmodernism is false, then it can be dismissed anyway.
What we've learned from Dr.(!) Russell is that arrogance itself is superstitious
very true
Truth does not change. Our ignorance or knowledge of Truth is the only thing that changes.
Thaddeus seems to me to be someone who is perfectly content with issuing hopelessly self-contradictory and self-defeating propositions. His is an unusual worldview to argue with because it explicitly eschews the rules of logical argumentation.
I’ve watched this debate a bunch of times. It is amazing how many contradictions Russell rolls out. His Eugenics argument is hilarious. He never for a moment seems to understand that the things he pretends to bemoan racism, sexism, etc (I don’t for a second think he really cares about these issues; he is a complete charlatan) Nonetheless, science and reason is what over threw the horse shit he cites.
Examples please....?
The most consistent postmodernist has always been Foucault because he understood how much of a Nietzschean you had to be to be a postmodernist, which most intellectuals can't. In a sense the best way to understand postmodernism is to understand it as counterculture being an ideology in itself. In other words, a constant attempt to resist definition and to constantly be in a stage of rebellion against the status quo for eternity.
In other words, it's adolescence converted into an ideology or anti-philosophy.
@@squatch545 post moderns claim that truth doesn't really exist, that everything is just an interpretation, this is their epistemological claim. The problem is that the claim is self-contradictory, if truth doesn't exist then the statement of "the truth doesn't exist" itself isn't true because the truth doesn't exist so that very statement isn't true which means that truth DOES exist.
The natural reply I'd get from a relativist is "logic is just a construct", but the problem is that you need logic ("a = a" and "a =|= not-a") to even be able to say that logic is a construct so it's a performatic contradiction, the human condition is to be logical (even when you misuse logic), it's IMPOSSIBLE to argue otherwise without contracting yourself.
Now look at the video, how many times does the post modernist claim the truth when he himself says the truth doesn't exist ? Everytime he says someone was wrong or he's right he's contradicting himself. If your philosophy doesn't claim the truth or worst, denies the existence of truth it's a futile philosophy and absolutely useless.
@@joaogarcia6170 Sorry, but you're going to need a citation and quote for your claim that "post moderns claim that truth doesn't really exist, that everything is just an interpretation"
Thaddeus kept saying that Hicks was misquoting those thinkers; but he never offered a counter quote.
Its the unknowing house of cards against the postmodern position though. There is no 'right' way to interpret those authors according to postmodernism. So, as usual the postmodernist violates the very 'anything goes' nature of his own position.
I noticed during the course of the lecture when Thaddeus was sitting, that his respiration rate was quite high and his body English was such that he presents as feeling threatened. For example, look at the shirt at he is wearing. It has a pattern on it that makes it easy to see his respiration rate. Very telling. At some points, it looks like he just came back from a run. He crosses one arm across his body and holds it with the other while looking down at the floor and not the speaker. Maybe he is not as comfortable with his position on post modernism as he states. Either that or Stephen Hicks is making a lot more sense and he knows it. And yes, Peterson is right about post-modernism as well. Very right.
Fascinating debate. More of this content please
Politics of individual liberty existed long before postmodernism came around. In fact, the politics of individual liberty have suffered greatly as a result of postmodernism and its corroding effect on higher education.
I'm surprised by how much history Thaddeus Russell gets wrong.
I'm not.
He's a post modernist.
Post modernists are *objectively* stupid.
:D
Lots of burnings at the stake and crusades bc christians didn't like how those Muslims were living. Nothing to do with Jerusalem...
Examples please....?
@@PsychedelicHistorian I'm not. He's an intellectual pygmy
No one told Thaddeus that the British stopped the slave trade in 1837 and proceeded to police the seas to eliminate it.
Thaddeus Russell watched The Matrix and took it to heart.
Liar's Paradox anyone?
Columbia apparently gives out PHD's in those.
“SJW’s repudiate postmodernism.” Well they sure do love using postmodern tools.
I waited for the Post-Modernist to make a reasonable claim, and well, it never came.
Can't believe this man Russell is a professor.😱
Thaddeus Russell: *saws off branch he's sitting on*
*Hmm this is interesting*
As he falls and dies, as does Western Civilization.
@@bigfan1041 I haven't fallen, I've simply moved closer to the ground.
I would have been awfully disappointed if that vote had gone the other way.
If there is no such thing as truth, how do we know that the older consensus was wrong? If something is found to be untrue, wasn't it always untrue?
It’s always nice hearing from Dr. Hicks
Postmodernism and debate do not share the same reality. Since you need facts as proof to argue a point. A postmodernist (contingent fact) by his definition is simply a thing that others (real humans) can choose to interact with, the same way one (actual real person) would interact with an object in reality. Since a postmodernist can both exist and not exist at the same time, you (actual person) can choose to acknowledge the existence of any individual depending on your personal opinion of reality. Therefore, Thaddeus by his definition, lost the debate because it didn't happen.
I think Hicks might have a more consistent definition of PM than Russell.
You'd be wrong: ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
“Our intuitions and religious institutions lie to us profusely ..... so let’s not believe scientific instruments or consilience of data ....” - Postmodernists
🎶
Ooh Woo he’s a rebel just for kicks now
got a beatdown from professor Hicks now
Pomos over now, but he feels it still
Yay team!
After listening to the entire thing, I think that the tone from the two speakers becomes apparent. Dr. Hicks respects individual rationality and submits questions and speculation to the audience and THAD has the tone of a preacher or the know-it-all who lectures in the quad.
Stephen Hicks is always worth listening to.
Thaddeus Russell is a bore, tragically for him, considering his world view.
It's hard not to notice Russell's attempts at winning support, not by proving his points but through (attempts at) humor and charisma. Sadly for him he failed and the biggest laugh went to Hicks. "I was waiting for the applause". Beautiful
Essentialist claims about gender identity are the OPPOSITE of postmodernism, which is about truth being relative, without certainty, fluid, existential, unfixed, not hinged to intrinsic substrates, essences:
PETERSON WAS WRONG ALL ALONG!!! beautifully stupid.
I couldn’t figure out why I haven’t been able to get through A Renegade History of the United States.
I’m starting to see why...
Likewise.
54:40 I give credit to Thad for stating that he doesn't believe in morality. He states that it's arrogant to claim that something applies to all people at all times. I wonder why he thinks that people shouldn't be arrogant. Maybe that's just one of his values. Is it arrogant to tell others not to be arrogant?
Post-modernism - narcissistic naval gazing. This is what a generation of kids have been taught. They have never been taught the ability to critically analyse. Worse than this, they have been taught that critical analysis is a destructive concept. I fear for the future, I really do.
It is a problem that we have to spend energy debating with these people. Imagine if we had to argue with flat earthers every time we sent a satellite into space?
Count how many times Thad makes the truth claim "Everybody believes/believed this"
Always be skeptical... right, just not about postmodernism.
Kudos to Stephen Hicks for putting up with 30 minutes of incoherent blabbering from a guy who say stories hold more emprical validity than actual scientific findings on the fundamental nature and laws of the universe. Whenever Russell opens his mouth contradictions spew in every direction, he is so deep and entrenched in his own BS it makes the Marianas Trench look like a damn puddle.
Stephen Hicks dominated this debate from start to end, there are things that are true no matter what you believe in which is even demonstrated by Dr Russel by actually using words to try to argue his case. Because if nothing is true his own belief is also not true, and he should not argue his position if he believes in it.
If ever a debate were needed about something, this certainly isn't it.
"I never speak the truth." 'Nough said.
"Truth" is a high bar to reach, but it exists. The "truth" is nuanced. That's an unpopular view now a days.
I don't believe in truth, I believe in reality.
I enjoyed listening to this debate. Steven Hicks is very powerful in putting forward viable arguments. What is conspicuous in postmodernists is that they are saturated with performative contradictions. On the one hand they enjoy the results of science in terms of medical advancement, technological progress and so forth, but on the other they try to undermine and belittle it by calling into question its foundation. They reject reason as a tool to understand reality, but it is this reason that led to science.
Most of the really clever Pomo thinkers are smart enough to couch their words in terms that help them avoid seeming to make a blatantly silly self-refuting argument. Thaddeus is not one of those people.
Does anyone else find that postmodernist try to own skepticism erroneously?
Postmodernism: throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The baby was drowned in the bath, but it wasn't immoral.