Stephen Hicks on Postmodernism Part 1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июл 2024
- Are truth, knowledge, and objective reality dead?
Postmodernism became the leading intellectual movement in the late twentieth century. It has replaced modernism, the philosophy of the Enlightenment. For modernism’s principles of objective reality, reason, and individualism, it has substituted its own precepts of relative feeling, social construction, and groupism. This substitution has now spread to major cultural institutions such as education, journalism, and the law, where it manifests itself as race and gender politics, advocacy journalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and the rejection of science and technology.
At the 1998 Summer Seminar of the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now called The Atlas Society), Dr. Hicks offered a systematic analysis and dissection of the Postmodernist movement and outlined the core Objectivist tenets needed to rejuvenate the Enlightenment spirit.
Watch Part 2 here: • Stephen Hicks on Postm...
ABOUT STEPHEN HICKS:
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. Hicks earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Guelph, Canada, and his Ph.D. from Indiana University, Bloomington. His doctoral thesis was a defense of foundationalism.
Hicks is the author of two books and a documentary. "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault." He argues that postmodernism is best understood as a rhetorical strategy of intellectuals and academics on the far-Left of the political spectrum to the failure of socialism and communism.
His documentary and book "Nietzsche and the Nazis" is an examination of the ideological and philosophical roots of National Socialism, particularly how Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas were used, and in some cases misused, by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to justify their beliefs and practices. This was released in 2006 as a video documentary and then in 2010 as a book.
Additionally, Hicks has published articles and essays on a range of subjects, including free speech in academia, the history and development of modern art, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, business ethics, and the philosophy of education, including a series of RUclips lectures.
Hicks is also the co-editor, with David Kelley, of a critical thinking textbook, "The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis."
When I hear "contradictotions are normal", I actually hear "War is peace; freedom is slavery; Ignorance is Strength"
I dont think thats right. Contradictions are normal in different levels
of resolution or organization. Think about the micro and macro of physics... how the data you get from one level seems to contradict the data you get from the other. Thats just a symptom of our limited (not nonexistent) tools for knowing reality.
Micro and Macro Physics are not contradictory---in fact all current models made SURE that they are not. The current model would work for BOTH micro and macro provided the correct data is inputted up to probability.
A model can only truly be self-contradictory when it predicts the motion of the micro perfectly but the macro COMPLETELY wrong (or vice versa). That's what a contradiction means.
Also contradictions are NOT normal in life---unintuitive perhaps, but there is always a reason and when it comes down to it, it correctly reflects reality and evidence. Unintuitive != contradiction, contradiction means if it happens the other is IMPOSSIBLE.
Like War is Peace---those words by definition are not the same, so while you can spin it however you like (see 1984), it is just a spin you cannot change the reality (of meaning of words) that they mean different things that is fundamentally incompatible---under ANY level of intellect---unless you go through with doublethink (see 1984 again).
Thanks for responding. I recently read 1984 too and it really hit me
hard when Winston was being... I dont know... reeducated? But I still
want to be very careful with that kind of Aristotelian "2+2=4" (if you
will lol). When it comes to math and science its more reasonable! yes
thank you and I dont know anything much about physics so excuse me on
that bad example. but other ways of "knowing" or "moving" in the world
are not so clear cut and free from paradox or contradiction.
Do you mean moral objectivity, promoted by the deranged post modernist Mao Zedong
Moral objectives do not exist. There are always BETTER morals depending on situations and need of society. If there is any "objective moral" it would be one that is based on what is beneficial to individuals and at large societies in the long run. That's why moralities change.
Mao is NOT a post modernist. He believed in the superiority of rigor and structure, analyzes battle tactics. He believes HIS version of morality is absolute and all who opposes is wrong. Cultural relativism is NOT a thing in Mao's eyes, there is only ONE true and good ideology, and that is communism. You are an idiot to consider Mao a post-modernist. He is a modernist.
But modernist doesn't make you a good person---you can be rigor and principled on a crazy idea. Post-modernism has 90% flaws but it also have a few good points, and why people gets persuaded.
I love this presentation - the current culture war now makes perfect sense. Supporters of the Enlightenment have a lot to lose.
So do the anti-Enlightenments, they just don’t know it
Thank you doctor Hicks. I started to wake up a couple years ago and my life now is a million times better. I give you some credit for it.
Holy crap, he gave this speech way back in 1998! It's 22 years later, and the chickens have really come home to roost.
I know!!
I wish they published the slides.
With Jackie Vernon narrating with his clicker in hand?
Steven hicks postmodern presentation- 2018:
ruclips.net/video/-BGbHG63x8w/видео.html
Giggles
A postmodernist cannot objectively "publish" both sides.
I'm neither a Modernist or Postmodernist but I thought he did a good job.
@Richard Martinez (it appears I read the original comment incorrectly)
Slides / sides
Oops
I prefer Perennialist or Traditionalist
Thank you.
@Richard Martinez thank you sir
What an excellent lecture - clear, structured, and logical
It’s great to hear how civil the question period is at the end, even tho most of the questions came from people who disagreed with him
Critical thinking is so rare these days. Refreshing like cool water in a dry wasteland. Thank you for the excellent upload.
Lol, how can we return to a past age? Reason got us this far. But his Alt-Right agenda is clear. Try Dr. Steven Goldman, "what scientists know"... Linus Pauling lecture, and teaching company, Dr. Rick Roderick, "Self Under Siege" #8! Explains post-modern trajectory, that got us TRUMP, lol
@@susanmcdonald9088 Interesting. I’ll check out Goldman.
Btw are you referencing “Reason” as defined by Plato? Bc yes, that doesn’t get anyone very far. But Hume’s skeptical reason? Heidegger’s mystical reason? Wittgenstein’s semantic? Ferdinand de Saussure’s historicolinguistic? They’re often referenced by Postmodernists but I think they’re the actual few moderate skeptics that have existed since Cicero and have been overcoming postmodernists and similar people. I guess that’s a metanarrative to be skeptical of, tho.
We cannot know reality by reason or experience, but CONSEQUENCE always looms, offering us glimpses of reality...
Effectiveness is the measure of truth
To suggest our senses may not fully comprehend the completeness of reality is logical to me, but to suggest that they have absolutely no relation to true reality, despite us having emerged from and existing in that reality, is a non-sequitur for me.
our ears and eyes can only see 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum...like looking through a key hole and thinking you clearly see inside the other room!
CoinSwapTrader the real reason it doesn’t matter is because it has zero utility. We exist on the visible spectrum, and filter out most of what we could see. The only useful forward movement involves us solving problems by presupposing things. You could sit around and be hyper skeptical all fucking day and you’d just die. That’s all the post modernists are. An aesthetic group of new wave skeptics thinking they are revolutionary for rebranding “there is no objective truth” onto language. You don’t even need to involve language for their beliefs as far as I can tell. Just say we can’t prove our experience maps onto reality. After that point why even care about all the language games. We are all going to keep behaving as if language represents reality anyway, who the fuck cares?
@@bigboy2217 good response.
@@bigboy2217 man, its a shame that you think that is the entire project of postmodern thought. Nevermind the fact that your synopsis is an absurd reduction.
@@JS-dt1tn Which stems from the reality that Postmodernism itself is an absurd reduction.
I here because of Jordan Peterson
Rob Vel me too
same
Same as well. However, after listening to this part of Hicks' lecture, I'm rather puzzled about Dr. Peterson's recommendation. Hicks is obviously smart and well spoken, but his little sketches of the philosophers he regards as forbears of post-modernism are deeply flawed, riddled with exaggerations and misinterpretations. Take Kant for example. While it is true that there are many very serious problems in Kant's philosophy, HIcks' treatment is little more than a travesty. Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is not an attack on rationality or science or even "reason." No, it's an attack (admittedly, a rather confused and pedantic attack) on the rationalistic metaphysics of the scholastics and the followers of Leibnitz. Kant had been awoken from his rationalistic "dogmatic slumber" by David Hume's "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," an incendiary attack against rationalistic speculation and "school metaphysics." While Kant agreed with Hume's criticisms of metaphysics, he had qualms about Hume's wholesale attack on rationalism. In the "Critique" Kant attempted to describe the "limits" of reason, that is, where reasoning was important for discovering truth (e.g., Kant's categories) and where it had serious shortcomings (e.g., speculative metaphysics). HIcks ignores these distinctions and turns Kant into an enemy of reason and reality. That's not fair or just. If you want to condemn a philosopher, you need to condemn them for what they actually believe, not for what you mistakenly think they believe.
Similar remarks could be made about many of the other philosophers Hicks talks about, including Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Hicks understanding of these thinkers is rather superficial, and his remarks about them, even when they contain an element of truth, are hyperbolic and partly false. I get the sense that Hicks has not really read these men; or if he has, he has not understood what he's read. His narrative seems to be driven by an agenda, rather than an all-consuming determination to be veracious and fair. It seems to me this is the wrong way to go about attacking postmodernism. How can Hicks criticize a belief system that denies the very possibility of honest and fair interpretation when he himself is not veracious or fair?
Greg Nyquist -- It's sad that people like us, who actually learned about these philosophers, are so fucking disappointed with stuff like this. Because, there's like.... 3 of us left.
Just beginning to realize now that the Hicks, Harris, and Petersons are just creating grand narratives.
Hearing words from Kant, like 'one can not know reality by using reason', or questions like 'why does existence exist' is what made me stop taking philosophy classes. But I must say, I truly enjoyed this lecture, really an explanation, by Stephen Hicks. Thanks for posting, Atlas Society.
Postmodernists are like film critics, they point out flaws based on their view, but the act of making a better movie is not part of their skill set, in fact whenever they do try it mostly fails.
Sohail Uppal amen
And here is you, criticizing post-modernism without offering an alternative. :)
I think it's because Post-Modernism isn't about creation, it's about deconstruction. In that way, it's effective like a bomb.
But wanton destruction is always easier than creation. Like when an over-tired toddler takes two minutes to smash down the beautifully-constructed sand castle that his/her older sibling spent all afternoon building and decorating.
Obviously the older child always knew their creation would disappear with the tide; but there's something malicious and envious about ADULTS trying to destroy creative works and IPs that they, themselves, don't have the skill to create.
Like with the author Amélie Wen Zhao, whose new book (which is sci-fi/fantasy) was excoriated and even temporarily cancelled, because she's not African-American and therefore she doesn't have the "right" to write a story with slavery in it (as if China never had slavery!)
I wish people would see how vindictive and irrational Post-Modernism is; because rationality is what we need most of all nowadays -- not tribalism, not the Progressive Stack which pits groups of people against each other when we most need to be working _together_ to solve problems. 🤷🏾♀️
Sohail Uppal postmodernists are cultural Marxist
Dodorus destroy cultural cultural marxism
Thanks for posting this new series of videos; very thought provoking.
I've listned to the lecture of Stephen Hicks twice now. The first part is a history on filosophy and how they are the pre-cursor to Post-modernism. This is a great perspective for a filosophy noob like me.
I like his analogy between decline of religion and decline of socialism, and the subsequent ways how filosophers deal with the conflict of their reasoning and the reality.
Second part is all about the concepts that make up Post-modernism thinking and its way of argumentation. Listen until the end, where Hicks argues that PM won't be around for long, since it lacks substance.
So we can disregard the origins of our culture, our language and the tools we use to make sense of reality?
We can just make up how we spell words as we go along, based upon how we are feeling?
That's very Post Modern of you, how clever.
Now, why should anyone place store in what you say?
You clearly want to refute the foundations of our common understanding and childishly assume the petulant stance of a teenager on the spelling of the very word at the core of this discussion.
How kool daddy oh!
“Postmodernism has replaced the concepts of objective reality, reason and individualism with relative feeling, social construction and groupism. And we like that, groupism. They say I’m a groupist, the greatest groupist they’ve ever seen. Nobody groups like I group! I’m a big time grouper, big time! Objective reality, who wants that? Get it the hell out of here!!!”
Gratitude.
Excellent lesson. Now I understand.
Outstanding presentation!
Could the human species have survived if instead of using reason and learning about how plants respond to the environment thereby introducing the concept of agricultural increasing food production, the pondered about how the plants feel, how i feel etc.
you my friend have run into the pseudoscience of Lysenkoism.
Survived? No doubt about it. Ancient hunter/gatherer societies thrived on their extremely intimate knowledge of how, when, and where plants grew.
As much as I love this lecture, this part really seemed absurd to me:
33:58: "Hegel loved to capitalize Reason, it was always 'Reason' with a capital 'R'."
Hegel wrote his books in German, a language in which nouns are always capitalized.
Frаnк interesting, I took a look and it appears many translators of his work capitalize that word for him in their translations for emphasis.
He (Stephen) used the "capital R" as an expression of emphasis.
German nouns also have a masculine, feminine, or neuter association(der, die, das). It’s more of a style than a deep meaning type of thing. BTW, if you live in America it should have been Das wienerschnitzel, not Der... still had good hotdogs.
I had a philosophy professor who translated Hegel, Lacan and other ‘continental’ philosophers. He had handouts (written by others) referring to capitalization of certain words in Hegel. I think there must be something to it because this guy loved Hegel.
Deconstructing this joke is very german😁
Thank you for posting this! I wish the visuals weren't lost to the ages
www.stephenhicks.org/2013/10/28/defining-modernism-and-postmodernism-chart/
I’ve read Hicks’ book on postmodernism. These videos are a nice refresher. You have to be at the top of your game to debate these post modern clowns because they have the tenor of the culture and the disposition of the times on their side. It’s just so easy to lay back and be “woke.”
Hicks as at the bottom of his field. He publishes on illegitimate or at lest disreputable publishing houses.
He doesn't understand medieval thought, the work of Immanuel Kant, modernism, and certainly not post-modern thought. His reading comprehension skills are questionable.
@@jeffmaehre7150 Noted. I've seen a fair amount of criticism of what Hicks has said and written to the point where I'm looking into post-modernism myself, maybe get some of this figured out. But even though he may have made mistakes or was sloppy about this or that, I still agree with his assessment of what's going in in academia and the culture at large. Meanwhile, what credentials do you bring to the table? Who would you recommend I read?
Refreshing summary. Thank you.
Fascinating! Look forward to listening to part 2
I think Kant and Kierkegaard would horrified by post modernism - which is a philosophic cancer.
James Benchia why do you think that? Postmodernism is an extension to the Skepticism that Kant pointed to in his philosophy. Even many considered both philosophers among the first generation of postmodernism.
If so, then would they recant? Haha
Why is it a cancer? What the hell is an "objective truth?"
@@couldbe8348 gravity is an objective truth. Or, if you think it's all in your head, just jump out a 20 story bldg. and see what happens... Maybe your 'truth' is you'd grow wings and fly?
Perhaps they would be horrified by the fact they are counted among the godfathers of postmodernism. They couldn't have imagined their ideas evolving into the situation we have today. If a time-traveller showed Kant or Kierkegaard a montage of video clips of the modern Academy melting down, and explained that these toxic ideas trace their pedigree back to them, I'm sure either man would reasonably be horrified.
I've had the intense experience of having read Nieztche for the past 4 years. I haven't really read anyone more recent than Nietzsche to much degree, although I am acquainted with a few. I've taken what Nietzsche has said and have been actively trying to work it into my life, work out my own meaning, my our purpose, my own values - as much as I really can. Anyways, over the past year my life underwent a near total demolishion - my sense of identity was shattered much in the same way as when one loses their religion. I spiraled into nihilism! I began tearing it all down, destroying and making way for something new!
Now that I'm in the process of rebuilding, I've been writing a lot. What amazes me is, writing in my own accord (in notes on my phone) I have managed to arrive at many of these conclusions. It feels so much more satisfying doing it more or less in my own, in my own way, than it does going to school and sitting in a lecture... Doing it my way, I can really live and learn.
Amazing videos. Thank you for the invaluable information.
GREAT lectures. Great channel. Well done!
An excellent survey of our contemporary quagmire of ideas!
Thank you for this upload.
There is no quagmire of ideas, merely a lack of intellectual rigour.
Truly Enlightening.
This guy is awesome, I need more Stephen hicks videos!
Cameron Believe
you nerd!
look at his "Explaining Postmodernism" -- it has charts for one
sounds like a nutter. Yes the western model needs to be careful, maybe like a parent to a child and even humble.
But to dismiss gravity for example and magnetism as if they were simply products of a male hierarchy and a wesern social construct is just insane
Get rid of all individuals what's left? Nothing. Get rid of all groups, what's left? Individuals. Individuals are the fundamental unit, not groups.
from where individuals emerge? they're conceptualisations of ideas that could be raised in that symbolic space.
Groups are made up of individuals thinking in different directions, reaching different conclusions, no?
@@johnnycrash5130 That's a pretty post-modernist thing to say. I think if anything is intuitive, the understanding of what an individual is probably ranks pretty high. To know who you are and where you end and where others begin is about as intuitive as knowing that the sky is blue or the sun rises from the east. To be productive, or to achieve some end, you should probably pick some essential things most can live with and proceed from there by reason. But again the purpose of postmodernism seems to be to challenge these essential things, which is fine, but to what end? It seems to be a purely intellectual exercise that for whatever reason folks are now trying to bring into the realm of practical matters like economics or politics. At least they have left the hard sciences alone, for now.
exactly...groups are fictions where soulless individuals vicariously are able to feel connected and alive through the hive collective!
@@Slu54 science is just the process of eliminating concepts that fit our narrow narrative of the universe, current science could be all wrong for all we know, after all, science can't be verified it can only be reinforced with what we think we know.
- Post modern gang
Post-Modernism is modern-day sophism
Leftists: "Technology is trying to conquer nature and will destroy the planet!"
Also leftists: "Here, have a condom."
Yeah. I see it as the emperors new clothes.
Only those smart and sophisticated enough (ie university educated) will understand the sophism involved. It’s a great wanky argument to prove your superiority by using bullshit to baffle, browbeat and belittle the uneducated (non university). It takes naivety to see past the lie.
As Voltaire wrote “ those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities”.
No it is not. It is malicious nihilistic warfare against a society that these people detest and want to destroy. Sophism was never so nihilistic.
@@iain5615 Have you read hicks book?
@@Rhygenix no but I know what Sophism was and what post modernism is. The sophists were not nihilistic. They might not have liked the social hierarchy but were not hateful of every aspect and did not seek destruction for the sake of destruction driven by hatred.
Very stimulating. Thank you for sharing. I can't wait to listen to part 2 tomorrow or when I get time. Sounds like you have fans there, and I suppose it helps but it is a little political when that is the case, in my opinion. My unbiased response is that I am glad I spent the last hour listening. Again, thanks for presenting.
You should learn about modernism and various schools of philosophical thought.
Would have been nice to see the charts and graphs that he's referring to and using in his presentation. But hey, thanks for the upload.
www.stephenhicks.org/2013/10/28/defining-modernism-and-postmodernism-chart/
Kelly Gerling, thanks. Snapshotted
Post modernism is an evaluation and critique of modernism... nothing more, nothing less. Overstating its impact is ridiculous
I also think the only way we can even do history at all, philosophical or otherwise, is because human nature has not changed on iota. If true, the ancient Greek dramatic author, Eripedes, 4th century BC, tells us all we need to know in his tragedies. Between Reason & Emotion, the latter wins, every time!
@49:00 - Imagine even suggesting to a mafia loanshark that the money you owe him is merely a construct of a subjective system with no access to reality...:):):)
Haha I know I am 2 years late replying but the Mafia man may suggest that your left leg is just a social construct with no more access to the rest of your body.
he'd introduce you to his baseball bat to wake you up to some reality
@@spindoctor6385 Jordan B Peterson said once and I am paraphrasing "Postmodernists, do not believe in objective truth, yetthey all died" XD
What do YOU think? View The Christian Atheist playlist on RUclips here
ruclips.net/user/johnandjennywiseplaylists
It is our mission to uncover and speak TRUTH in the pursuit of meaning, no matter where that takes us.
The Christian Atheist ... To believe or not to believe - that is the question.
The Christian Atheist? - seriously? What does that even mean? Or is it a deliberate contradiction for the sake of mind games? Like "the dry blue ocean waves..." or "the believing, trusting skeptic".
One hour of citation needed.
Non postmodernists typically explain postmodernism more clearly than postmodernists do.
By strawmanning it
@@11kravitzn really? In what way?
@@sgt7
Postmodernism isn't just Marxism in disguise, for example, as Hicks argues
@@11kravitznWhy not?
@@Faeron1984 Nietzsche was an early postmodernist (maybe a pre-postmodernist) and he was not a Marxist in any sense.
The answer is simple... When playing a game of chess with a cheater, you call them out. If they try to deny it, you take the chess board and beat them into the ground. These people are beyond dangerous, they are destroying the human heart, and given enough time, they will be responsible for the deaths of billions of people. Disclaimer, chess is a game, you don't really beat up cheaters while playing a game. But postmodernism is not a game, it's a tactic of war. A tactic that is designed to divide and conquer and subdue as many people as possible without firing a shot so as not to expose the evil nature of it's ideology. The problem with their ideas is that as much as they want us to believe violence is evil, violence is not as evil as convincing the masses to cut their own throats, while patting themselves on their own backs for the great favor they believe they are doing for the people.
"I think therefore I am...going think and conclude whatever I choose to , without adherence to logic and without regard to facts or evidence."
This is excellent, however I have read a fair bit of Heidegger and while I have to defer to Hicks as being an expert, there are definitely things that Heidegger said that contradict Hicks assessment.
Sounds like in Literary Criticism, it’s just a simple case of hearing only what you want to hear and not really listening or reading at all
Excellent lecture.
Jordan Peterson brought me here
Peterson takes from Neitchie and criticises postmodernism.
ditto, starting to understand why JP hates PM.
Sorry to hear that. But hey, he is only a product, a reaction and doesn't really have any new thoughts or anything to add to our collective body of knowledge. I can understand why some people may like some of the things he says, nobody's perfect. If folks need to go to church every Sunday to hear the same sermons and be reminded to do good, then there is a problem. However, if folks already do good and only go to church to socialize with other human beings and do good acts for others, then that is good, assuming they are not hurting others (ie Catholic church raping kids/nuns, etc.).
Good overview leading to post modernism. It would have been nice to see the charts he referred to. Are they in his book?
I believe the reference to Goodman at 49:27 is incorrect (please correct me if I'm mistaken). His discussion of "Grue" was not related to the notion of conceptual relativity, but rather to time-dependent predicates and their role in describing problems with scientific induction.
I can't get over that this was in '98.😲
You probably don't realise that postmodern philosophy began in the 1920's, peaked in the 1940's, had a brief revival in the 1960's and was out of vogue by the 1980's, either... you probably think it's the main school of thought right now because Jordan Peterson pissed his pants about it
Actually, if the universe began to exist, it has a cause. The universe is space, time, energy and matter. The cause must therefore be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, immeasurably powerful, personal mind. That's what people call God. If Jesus was raised from the dead, Christianity is true.
Amen
Thanks you!
Kant's subjectivity is not like post modernist subjectivity is. I think most people misread Kant, this guy included. I'm no philosopher, but I think I give a better explanation of Kant than anyone has ever done in my movie "Dialectic". In this I explain what Kantianism really is. Kant placed limits on reason, limits that he proved, and using post Kantian science, I prove his basic hypothesis. Kant's statement about knowledge and faith was a necessity to explain observations, particularly in the moral domain. Kant does not say reason is impotent, he only shows it has limits. I think there is a silent war on Kant because our established powers do not want reason or conscience in our courtrooms. Its worth noting that Canadians no longer have rights to a Christian courts (defense and jury) and that our legal rights are to have tribunals in justice (Jewish law) rather than courts of law. I explain the difference between justice and law in Dialectic, also in "Law, the light of Reason and Conscience". I like Kant, Plato and Rousseau mainly.
For the longest time, I've been struggling to really grasp post-modernism on a truly intellectual level, but I do know that when I hear its ideas laid out I feel like somebody kicked a hole in my soul and took a shit in it.
Donald Thomann lolll
Enjoy exploring nihilism. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline
Call 1-800-273-8255
Hicks and J. Peterson don't understand postmodernism and misrepresent it.
ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
@Donald; Professor Hicks is well and truly out of his depts regarding any insight into Post-Modernism and one finds this in most universities all over the US. Mere eloquence does not replace rigor in thinking.
I am in the process of concluding my postings on the topic, which can be followed here:
vm.tiktok.com/ZMetvQcyE/
So, the anti-SJW movement, of which I am very much a part, and which has lead to rise of Trump, Boris Johnson, Jordan Peterson, etc...is essentially a re-emergence of modernism.
no. It's just men unable to deal with f3m1n1sm so they call it ''SJW'' and spin their wheels
Fubar AlAkbar The neo modernists!
@@stevenleejobe Yes! I like this! In fact I'm going to suggest it to Sargon of Akkad, as he actually mentioned giving a name to our movement in one of his videos.
Fubar AlAkbar Yes, please suggest to Sargon. I’d be honored. Surely we need a name and a set of canonic documents just like back in the day with Locke and DeCarte.
I would say it's a lot more complicated than that, but that is a part
Really solid, thorough analysis. Enjoyed this.
33:37 it can’t be the case that ‘contradictions should be embraced’ and ‘contradictions should not be embraced’ at the same time and the same sense. This demonstrates the law of non-contradiction that postmodernism tries to oppose.
what are the impacts upon feminism of postmodern theories and the concept of “intersectionality” of oppressions? What strengths and dilemmas for contemporary feminism have resulted?
Well Done!
Quick question on Objectivist logic: What would the most basic premise in your philosophy be? The axiomatic foundation. This is a sincere question.
Love his analysis of Herman Melville's Moby Dick, hooked me right there
good ones
I recognize some of this in my own thinking, and that makes me wonder how ingrained is this "philosophy" in people from X gen and up. And how to root it out... it's clearly very damaging and may be a contributing factor in my own nihilism and depression.... So, how do we get back to reason? A mind so trained in anti-reason...how to fix what is broken?
really enjoyed listening to Hicks. Completely confirmed for me the validity of Post-Modernism.There are some zealotry on both sides but using the synthetic pyscho -babble of Nietzsche does'nt do him any favours nor his ideas.
Could someone tell me what that last question was? I couldn’t quite get it even after rewinding it.
The conclusion that because science cannot get to a perfect image of reality, there is no true reality is absurd. It is like saying that because a photograph of a tree is out of focus, you can deny the existence of the tree entirely if you want.
thank you professor Peterson for recommending Steven Hicks to figger out what postmodernism is about.
Whoops! That was dangerously close "nigure".
Neither Hicks nor Peterson understand postmodernism.
ruclips.net/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/видео.html
@@reptard6833 More importantly: Kant.
Why wouldn't you look to a postmodern thinker to figure out what it's about? Do gross oversimplifications make you feel better?
I'm with Hicks on his critique of postmodernism, but he has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the medieval mind. Yes, it was an age of faith, but the distinction between reason and faith was understood and affirmed. Medieval philosophy was, first of all, philosophy; it was also metaphysically realist, and utterly affirmative of reason. It was significantly a perpetuation of Greek rationalism.
No. The medieval philosophy is centered in the believing of god.
Then comes reason and all the rest.
In greek and modern philossophy the center is the truth, at least the aspiration of it.
Medieval age kill most of the ancient knowledge, only kept the part that did not disturb the imposition of faith.
I have to note that medieval philosophy was not based only on "faith" and but on faith and reason, Aristotelian logic being the foundation of theology.
It comes to mind while listening that, regarding the above, it was the doctrine of the Logos that identified human reason with the Divine reason that structures the universe, hence the ability of the human being to attain true knowledge. The mystics go further: following the mind above the material plane "experience God through God Himself."
Philosophy wrestles across the ages with the same problems, but the starting points, or premises, and end points, differ. Reason is never absent (except maybe in Postmodernism).
This reminds me of Neil Degrasse Tyson's Beyond Belief talk, in which he points out that the Islamic world was the cutting edge of leadership in scientific advancement and discovery until around 1070-1100 when Imams started preaching that Math was of the devil, and that their culture has failed to recover from that mistake even 1000 years later.
Maths .
So you're interested in pop-culture versions of scientists, "philosophers." Have you ever read any real scholarship?
Just lies and misinformation
Kant uses reason to discredit reason? So isn't he discrediting his own ideas as if they're built into his reasoning and reason is flawed....
man's reason is flawed....but god is male and is absolute divine perfect reason!
Reason can be used to invalidate itself, it’s a well known Christian principle. Reason and intellect believe they have all the answers when in reality they just fall in love with themselves and their limited scope. Wisdom is much better. It’s like the combined experience and reason of your ancestors up to this point. Use all of that and tread with caution.
Excellent. This clears up what's happening in our culture. Thank you!
Are you interested in Ayn Rand's novels and her philosophy of Objectivism? Come join like-minded individuals at the 2015 Atlas Summit. We've got scholarships for students! www.atlassociety.org/as/atlas-summit-promo-video
A question of Stephen Hicks - why Postmodernism was defeated in the area of its origin, namely Philosophy yet turned out to be extremely successful in other humanities?
We are living in the age of confusion where people don't know what to believe anymore. Anything can be argued or debated, we know that, and that's exactly what's happening. But taking away any value system " which is exactly what are doing, is recipe for disaster.The only reason the western world is the most sought after place to live "at least for now"is because we where built on a judeo Christian value system. Most people today refuse to accept this thinking they are inherently good "arrogant is a better word". Ask potential immigrants why they don't want to move to places like Bosnia or Saudi Arabi? Reality sets in when someone's chopping your head off with a sword or taking your 13 year old child for a wife. These are the real issues today and that's what we are opening the door to. I guess my comment would have more impact with 5 syllable words, so my apologies.
Babylon,total confusion
Shaun mcinnis, Agree with much of what you commented except this perverse idea that Western civilization, in particular, America, is/was built upon a "judeo"- Christian value system. That's utter nonsense propagated by so-called Right-wing media outlets such as PragerU and ShapirU. Western civilization was NOT built on or based upon a "judeo"- Christian anything. Western civilization was established upon a *C.H.R.I.S.T.I.A.N* worldview and value system. I know, big SHOCKER! How "Horrifying!!" But entirely true. Sure, there were some Jews involved, but their ideologies have mostly led to much dismay. Hamilton and his big idea of a centralized bank not beholden to or held accountable by any established government, for example.
@@krs2711 Where did monogamy come from? Where did marriage come from? Where did forgiveness and compassion come from? Where did "do onto others as they would do unto you" come from? These are ALL Christian principles my friend. The secular world had no reason to objectively seek these values. Oh and if you think they did, Then what would be the reasoning behind it?
@@shaunmcinnis1960 communist youtube has deleted my reply 4 times now. Thank you for arguing MY point for me, Shaun. It's simply CHRISTIAN civilization. No compound modifier necessary, I.E. "judeo"
Such lucid thinking and speaking. As someone who was forcibly immersed in postmodern thinking in the early 90s whole doing an M.A. in English, and who since then has spent 25+ years cleansing himself of this claptrap by learning from older, traditionalist critics like the long since late great Northrop Frye and the now sadly recently late great Harold Bloom, I am delighted to hear Hicks on this subject and I’m sure will read his book in the future. I have heard defenders of postmodernism say he doesn’t know the philosophers he addresses deeply. I can’t judge, since most of them I only know secondhand myself, but I’ve yet to hear someone reveal a deep and significant error in Hicks’s thinking. For instance, I’ve heard it said that his scan of Kant on reason lacks nuance, but as soon as someone gives that nuance, I fail to see how it makes a difference to Hicks’s fundamental argument, which is that an attitude of some skepticism towards reason in Kant is one source of the same skepticism among the postmodernists. In other words, it’s not enough to find an error or a nuance lacking in Hicks (though I am not yet convinced even of that); it has to make a significant difference to the overall argument, and I haven’t seen a commenter really point out such a weakness yet. Hicks absolutely makes sense of postmodern thought as it was relayed to me through readings and lectures when I was in grad school, for what that’s worth.
Very well said, thanks for the write up.
The speaker’s contention that Postmodernism is bad is an opinion that can easily be disputed and dismissed.
Though I disagree with some of what Steven Hicks says, he does a good job.
www.stephenhicks.org/2018/01/06/peterson-hicks-discussion-on-pomo-transcription/
Jordan Peterson and Stephen Hicks diagnose Post-modernism.
*The full blow-by-blow transcript of Jordan Peterson's August 2017 interview of Prof. Stephen Hicks, author of "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism from Rousseau to Foucault."*
9:54 Modernism - a broad philosophical movement:
1/ What is real? (metaphysics)
2/ How do you know? (epistemology; human knowledge and the source of this knowledge)
3/ So what? (values, how these form society)
4/ Human Nature (our relationship to rational capacity, emotion, reality in comparing 1/ and 2/ including free will and causality, then the nature of 3/ inc social and moral ethics)
Also, the declining faith in science has to do with the corruption at the hands of major corporate interests steering the way of science. But, of course, this is just a post-modern delusion.
considering Marcel Duchamp's, The Bride Stripped Bare, By Her Bachelors Even, would you consider his last piece, Given the Illuminated Gas and the Waterfall, 1968 Postmodern or maybe Kitsch?
Anyone know where you can get the chart he is talking to?
@40:00 - Why must there be a reason for existence?
People become famous by challenging widely accepted beliefs. They gains followers if they successfully projects the flaws of the present beliefs. Then their theory becomes popular and widely accepted. The cycle continues.
Unless ofcourse there comes a system where its inherent flaws openly accepted while integrating it to the society.
Oh, the outrage in the posts written by people who disagree!
After Wittgenstein, we might ask: "Why is the sky blue?" The answer in this context would be: "Because we all agree that it is blue, and we agreed when we were powerless to disagree..."
Go ahead. Hate on postmodernism. I think it's interesting and it takes courage to see the world that way. People don't understand it. It's as valid as any other point of view.
I hate it, it's racist and sexist.🤦🏾♀️
Post-Modernism stratifies all of humanity into opposing layers of Oppressed/Oppressors and assumes someone like me will necessarily have more in common with all other disabled brown mixed-race women, than with, for instance, a homeless white man, or a rich black agender person.
People are too different, too individual, to be judged and pigeon-holed based on our immutable characteristics. I choose friends based on the content of their character, not by how many physical traits they do or do not share with me.
So Exactly , What happened to Moderism ?
Not that Stephen Hicks could tell you this--he's completely wrong about postmodernism in very simple and basic ways--but the emergence of fiat currency is regarded as the end of the "modern," at least by Baidou.
@@HWalla23 so if Hicks is wrong about it then what is postmodernism
Modernism is alive and well - however, Professor Hicks is well and truly out of his depts regarding any insight into Post-Modernism and one finds this in most universities all over the US.
I am in the process of concluding my postings on the topic, which can be followed here:
vm.tiktok.com/ZMetvQcyE/
So if one would want post modernist to review a novel where would one go to show them ?
[Is it possible to post the slides for this entire presentation?
...]
This 2--part series will somewhat help to explain to me "how we got here" in 2020 if at least tangentially to "cultural Marxism" and "Intersectionality" that pervades 3rd-wave feminism and the BLM organization and other leftist and progressive ideologies.
...
Having read quite a few books in college on "film theory" when I earned a bachelors in "Radio, Television, and Film," and now having read over the past 17 years on various psychological books as a medical librarian cataloging these sorts of titles, I've come to 1 major conclusion about how people write:
...
Anyone who writes in words with more than 2 or 3 syllables is writing to hear himself or herself read aloud and is suffering under the delusion of self-importance and conceit.
...
I've often had to read and re-read the same paragraphs over and over again from people who write tomes that sound self-important with my dictionary in arm's reach. And I happen to have a decent vocabulary. So if I can't figure it out, and I'm definitely not the smartest person in the room, then it's too overly inflated to be read at all. I'm not suggesting to "dumb it down," but I am suggesting that if you can't say it simply, then you don't know your own work.
rationality is replaced by bull shit. yes. that's perfectly legitimate
Is there a transcript of this speech available anywhere?
www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau-ebook/dp/B005D53DG0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513182119&sr=8-1&keywords=steven+hicks
Is there someone constantly whispering in the background "ok...aha...ok....ok", or am I hearing voices?
I just heard it too lol
That's the worst take on Kant I ever heard. I don't know enough about Rand to know whether Hicks is just blindly following a bad take she is responsible for as a fanboy or is himself responsible for that mess and didn't understand her all that well, but it's utterly unprofessional whatever the original source of this is. Kant was far from putting faith over reason. His whole endeavour was about proving the objective legitimacy of the laws of the sciences by an analysis of the fundamental conditions of human experience and reasoning. While some arguments may be outdated today (he was using Euclidean geometry for an important proof that was outdated by the time of the arrival of Einstein's theory of relativity), Hicks doesn't seem to have any clue whatsoever what the whole point of the Kantian argumentations was directed at. There may be a slight whiff of truth in the "faith" reasoning presented here considering Kant (certainly still child of his time in this regard) didn't outright dismiss faith as necessarily absurd, but located questions like those about the existence of god outside of the realm of possible empirical experience and thus outside of the kind of reasoning science and philosophy can and should engage in.
It's not relativism but even trivially true that what our brain makes us experience as, for example, an apple, is nothing more than our sensory experiences of the visuals of the apple, the taste in our mouth when we eat it, the pressure in our hand when we lift it up, the sound we hear when it falls to the ground, and so on. There is no "direct" relation to the thing outside causing the representation our minds will give us and there never can be. Is the "apple by itself" similar, vaguely or vastly different? We can't know, because everything we sense about the apple is fundamentally a representation transmitted through the neurological network of our brain - Kant recognizes this simple fact of the conditions of our experience truthfully, but also teaches his readers that in the end it doesn't matter. He allows us to trust the rules and conclusions (i.e. laws of nature) we can deduce from the things that appear to us and thus solves a long-standing philosophical debate relevant in his time. To paint this as some kind of "postmodern" mumbo jumbo that puts feelings over facts and gives rise to irrational and arbitrary ideas about the world is an almost infantile misconstruction of the arguments presented in the critique of pure reason and the intentions behind his work as a philosopher.
Kants arguing was meant to purge professional sciences from contamination with religious quackery and endless engaging in mythological speculations doomed to lead nowhere. It was also a clear rejection of any meddling with epistemological relativism of the kind postmodernists would like people to take seriously centuries later. While it's true he left some possibility for private belief in speculative religious possibilities (i.e. "non-rational" private speculations or hopeful fantasies about non-experiencable things that may or may not exist in some way beyond the limits of our reasoning), framing his work as a fundamental apology of religious dogmatism or fundamental-sceptical rejection of a reality is utterly misleading. As is Hick's ludicrous attempt to count Kant as a figure of "counter-enlightenment" - that stands diametrically opposed to the vast majority of sane takes that would of course place him very clearly as one of the leading figures of the enlightenment movement.
I liked some arguments Hicks made in other contexts so far, now I'm actually wondering if I've been listening to a hack all the time. He seems to be able to fail badly in judgment and to unashamedly argue completely out of any professional depth when he is trying to lecture about branches of philosophy he doesn't know much about or seems for whatever reason pre-disposed against.
I think it’s entirely reasonable to see in Captain Ahab “an almost insane desire to dominate nature through technology,” even if that’s not what Melville had in mind. But then, I’ve been doing this sort of thing with old episodes of Star Trek for decades.
Your point about Thomas Kuhn is intriguing. I’ve never read him, but I am aware of his basic argument, or at least thought I did. I hadn’t really considered the idea of him being in the same line of thinking as Foucault. Maybe that’s because I’ve heard him referred to by Young Earth Creationists (generally not of the Left) attempting to dismiss Darwin. I’ve also heard his arguments deployed by those attacking climate change science, also people not of the Left.
YOU SAY THIS - 'I think it’s entirely reasonable to see in Captain Ahab “an almost insane desire to dominate nature through technology,” even if that’s not what Melville had in mind.' But that my friend is total, utter and absolute drivel.
@@richarddelanet Why?
@@proudhon100 Ahab lost his leg to the white whale. He wants revenge - at whatever cost consumed as he is. Hunting a particular individual in the white whale community is ... "dominating nature" ? How so? And secondly the technology of oil based illumination leads to hunting whale and yet Ahab wishes to kill one single solitary whale, not as many as might be needed - together with the rest of Nantucket etc - to light civilisation.
@@richarddelanet Doesn't civilisation come at the cost of dominating nature? And abandoning that domination will collapse civilisation - net zero is doing that.
@@proudhon100 That may well be the case, but what on earth does that have to do with Capt Ahab. If you mean or are referring to Moby Dick the entire book which includes whaling generically, why not just say that?
What is not really looked at in depth is that the Medieval mind set that enlightenment /modernism questioned was the dominance of Religious belief ,in particular, Christianity.
So no answer for that theory-laden question in the end. Who can refute "grounded theory"? Theory built on and based on data, educated researchers' reflections, criticism, and the inclusion and examination of the contextual and structural frameworks, many of which later followed by positivist.
This how a physicist gave postmodernism a hilarious black eye and live to tell about .
For anyone who pays attention to popular accounts of physics and cosmology, quantum gravity is a thing. How could it not be? Quantum gravity is the place where the two pillars of modern physics-quantum mechanics and relativity-collide head-on at the very instant of the Big Bang. The two theories, each triumphant in its own realm, just don’t play well together. If you are looking for fundamental challenges to our ideas about the universe, quantum gravity isn’t a bad place to start.
A bit over two decades ago, quantum gravity also proved to be the perfect honey trap for a bunch of academics with a taste for nonsense and an envious bone to pick with science.
In 1994, NYU physicist Alan Sokal ran across a book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt. In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science[3], Gross and Levitt raised an alarm about those in the new field of “cultural studies” who were declaring that scientific knowledge, and at some level reality itself, is nothing but a social construct. Unsure whether he should take Gross and Levitt at face value, Sokal went to the library and dove into the literature that they were criticizing. When he came up for air, he was much more familiar with the postmodernist critique of science. He was also appalled at the depth of its ignorance about the subject.
Most scientists respond to such nonsense with a muttered, “good grief,” but Sokal felt compelled to do more. He decided to give postmodernists a first-hand demonstration of the destructive testing of ideas that tie science to a reality that cuts across all cultural divides.
Sokal had a hypothesis: Those applying postmodernism to science couldn’t tell the difference between sense and nonsense if you rubbed their noses in it. He predicted that the cultural science studies crowd would publish just about anything, so long as it sounded good and supported their ideological agenda. To test that prediction, Sokal wrote a heavily footnoted and deliciously absurd 39-page parody entitled, “Transgressing The Boundaries. Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”[
The paper is worth reading just for a belly laugh. It promises “emancipatory mathematics” at the foundation of “a future post-modern and liberatory science.” “Physical ‘reality’,” it declares, “is at bottom a social and linguistic concept.” He embraces the notion, seriously proposed by some, that logic itself is invalidated by “contamination of the social” When he showed it to friends, Sokal says, “the scientists would figure out quickly that either it was a parody or I had gone off my rocker.”
Sokal submitted his paper to a trendy journal called Social Text. Understanding the importance of ego, he freely and glowingly cited work by several of the journal’s editors. For their part, the folks at Social Text were thrilled to receive Sokal’s manuscript. Here at last was a physicist who was “on their side!” After minor revisions, the paper was accepted and scheduled to appear in an upcoming special “Science Wars” edition.
The bait had been taken, but the trap had yet to be sprung. That came with a piece by Sokal in Lingua Franca that appeared just after Social Text hit the stands, exposing “Transgressing the Boundaries” as the hoax it was.
Parody sometimes succeeds where reasoned discourse fails. Sokal’s little joke burst free of the ivory tower on May 18, 1996, when The New York Times ran a front-page article entitled, “Postmodern Gravity Deconstructed, Slyly.”The Sokal Hoax became a hot topic of conversation around the world!
Reactions to Sokal’s article were, shall we say, mixed. The editors of Social Text were not amused, to put it mildly, and they decried Sokal’s unethical behavior. One insisted that the original paper was not a hoax at all, but that fearing reprisal from the scientific hegemony, Sokal had “folded his intellectual resolve.” It was lost on them that had they showed the paper to anyone who knew anything about science or mathematics, the hoax would have been spotted instantly.
As most scientists did: When I heard about it, I busted a gut!
I still laugh, but the Sakai Hoax carries a serious message. In addition to diluting intellectual rigor, the postmodern assault on science undermines the very notion of truth and robs scientists and scholars of their ability to speak truth to power. As conservative columnist George Will correctly observed, “the epistemology that Sokal attacked precludes serious discussion of knowable realities.” Today, from climate change denial, to the anti-vaccine movement, to the nonsensical notion of “alternative facts,” that blade is wielded on both sides of the political aisle.
Sokal gets the last word. Quoting from his 1996 Lingua Franca article, “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the 21st floor.)”