Your videos are so aesthetically and logically pleasing. There's a very calming simplicity to them. Please keep them coming. I wish you more subscribers. Thank you
Imagine I took all my many notebooks worth of notes on what postmodernism is and put them into a computer. The computer reorganizes everything I've learned and printed out a succinct, easy to read, final report. That' what this video is. Thank you for organizing it so well.
@@bingbong3643 He's missing a big component: pervasive lying for money in research institutions. Matters of principle don't delimit matters of practice.
@@spikedaniels1528 He's missing a big component: pervasive lying for money in research institutions. Matters of principle don't delimit matters of practice.
I really appreciate where you said in essence, "this I where I'm taking a side and no longer being fully objective." It's great to have the distinction
I was brought to your channel from the crt video. I was searching for information on crt that isnt ad hominen or politically charged and i found yours! The videos that you have posted thus far are eerily similar to the topics ive been pondering abt. Thanks so much for putting these out in a calm and rational manner.
I don't know how you don't have more exposure. You do a really good job of explaining WHAT postmodernists are and WHY they're so paradoxical. Your stuff is great!
Agree ❗ First time viewer, not that far into the video but already impressed! You don't even find a title like this anywhere else. Much needed. While Earnestly Hoping and Working Very Hard to get the grades and recommendations needed to go on to grad school, I realized that this school of thought was taking over among the teaching assistants. That was the first step in collecting data about the unhappiness of people I knew who were in grad school--unhappiness largely based on the soulless dominance of crap ideas under the umbrella of post-modernism. This begin my decision to give up that particular hard sought dream.🥀 😣🌾 I became a poetry and fiction writer instead.✨🥰🌸
I'm very glad I found this channel. It's a nice antidote to James Lindsay's contemptuous (at times) sarcasm, which can be a turnoff. Your calm, succinct narrative is so clear, it's really solidifying my understanding of this movement. You're also very brave for making this video, so Thank You.
I’m just a laymen who’s interested in this sort of stuff. Is there a book or a source where I can find out all these terms and their ideas or definitions. Like modernism, postmodernism, existentialism, romanticism, and stuff of that nature?? Is this like philosophy or sociology or what does this fall under?
Yeah I remember Lindsay being really annoying and reductive. But I'm not sure where Ryan is getting his readings on wokism from other than Lindsay and Cynical Theories. Maybe Peter Bogosjian?
@@JustinFisher777 it’s hard to look at all the trees in the forest. I wanna look at the forest as a whole then focus on the trees that interest me. Not study only the trees I’m aware of, I want to know the name of the forest I’ve found myself in
Just discovered your channel today and been binge watching ever since! Really easy to digest but you don’t over simplify. We’ll informed and not partisan or ranty. And refreshingly balanced! Love it! Thank you! I learned a lot this afternoon!! Yey!
Great videos mate 👍, as someone who feels tired of being a tennis ball in the unending social arguing going on, these videos are really useful for my personal education and a wider understanding of the opposing factions in modern society.
I found this to be an incredibly helpful walkthrough of Modernism and French Postmodernism. While I wasn't expecting the critique on modern radical leftism, I thought it fit well with your analysis. The tie to what we're seeing now in the left (speaking as someone who sees themselves as a leftist) was especially powerful.
I’m glad you’re seeing this as a self-identified leftist, because it gets at why so many rational independents and conservatives are running hard to the right: We see the censorship and intellectual tyranny in the denial of objective reality as incredibly dangerous and untenable in any kind of democratic system. But, if we try to raise concerns, we get smeared as racist or misogynist, which only confirms our worst fears, and we have to dig in. If you actually believe in a just society, for the love of all that is holy, please try to rein in these radicals. It’s only going to get worse until their utterly irrational & illiberal ideology destroys us. The 2022 midterms will return Congress to R control, and the left will be apoplectic about how morally reprehensible everyone but themselves are… We’re one more summer of riots from open warfare in the streets.
Same here. A lot of socially Liberal and economically Marxist ideas appeal to me, but there’s a certain mindset within these movements that I think is detrimental to the movement. This video made it clear to me that it’s the post modernists within the movement that I dislike. I dislike the fluidity of language and the logical inconsistencies.
In all honesty it's us Lefties who have woken up that have the most power to fight this thing. We have to share this stuff with family and social circles. I've lost friends of 25 years but the more open minded ones are starting to get it.
Just got on to this chap recently. Brilliant. He has done the hard yards and is such a clear thinker. I would share this but I doubt that most of my friends have the patience to weather the concentrated information presented here. Nevertheless I will try.
Finally a good take on this topic. Every philosopher seems to have made a video about how dumb it is that postmodernism is linked with modern leftism when Foucault would have disagreed with them on so much.
@@Pyryp2 ya, sounds like he read Jordan Peterson and misread a wiki on pomoism. Lol This guy just speaks well. Unfortunately I haven't seen a video of his that isn't overly problematic or just factually wrong. He has a loose understanding of under educated liberal pomoism and calling it Leftist pomoism. He referenced a few socialist pomos, but doesn't sound like he actually read them, just cherry picking.
@@anthonyrandazzo8836 its like mad prole said, For example, he identified Sorel as a marxist but Sorel was not a marxist. He was a syndicalist. syndicalism is like what Sorel's writing is all about so it's pretty weird to lump him in with marxists if you actually bothered to read Reflections on Violence (but I can see someone make that mistake if they just scanned through his wiki and never actually bothered to read his work). His video is scattered with all sorts of little errors like this but you can definitely feel the Jordan Peterson vibes from it.
I don't know what creates that affect, but something about your voice is so objective. Whenever you talk about anything, even if you tell your opinion on it, it doesn't feel like im being pressured into agreeing (the way it usually is with other channels talking about similar topics). It really helps to listen to the information without my emotions getting in the way. Thanks
I love this guy! After watching RUclips hotheads bloviating about hot topics, it's refreshing to hear what Ryan has to say without having him hammering on my head.
Ryan, this is brilliant. I wish you had not slipped in the "sympathy" segment at the end for the RPM, but otherwise .... brilliant. You've even convinced me to soften ever so slightly on the Old French Dudes!
Excellent video, they keep getting better. Thank you for this great summary (I think, cannot judge well I've mostly heard Peterson talk about it). It makes sense the way you explain it and comes across honest and credible building it up from the start and explaining it's merits at first
Man, what excellent thoughts. I've recently read White Fragility in an ongoing attempt to understand my wife's lived experience as a black woman in the US. Though parts of the book were helpful, I came away with a feeling of dread. You've nailed the source of it, namely that Dr Diangelo's ideas are radically post-modern, are not falsifiable as a hypothesis, and implicate me and every white person as irredeemably racist. Most frighteningly, and without any solid evidence, our racism is unconscious. Keep up the good work. Have a sub and a like and a notification button click :).
I also believe any ideology that makes a person feel guilt should take it back a notch. That being said some ideas such as CRT are helpful in the arena because it provides a way of looking at biases in its rawness and offers some solutions, but not all of which are reasonable.
@@vedantpatel6379 CRT is not racist but objective because it does not side with one side more than the other. Point to how it is racist if you truly believe that.
@@amitsunoko7270 I don't know what you are talking about. I am actually Native American. You are also going to address me as such. Do not call me indigenous.
@@amitsunoko7270 It takes some serious level of insanity to think that CRT is helpful, not racist and objective. Worse than that are only Flat Earthers.
The problem is that encouraging critiquing metanarratives is itself a metanarratives and, worse, it's a metanarrative that blinds the follower to the fact that it is a metanarrative while also creating huge vacuums in the inevitable need for GRAND narratives. That's why everyone in these vacuums is behaving so incredibly dogmatic and religious and in extremely fundamental ways.
Religions are meta narratives but their criticism is not; the apostate or heretic is a singularity in the face of the religious crowd and institution. Ironically, Kant, 1799 'Conflict of the Faculties,' expressed disagreement with the structure of the university which privileged the Theology Department over all others, especially lowly philosophy!
@@fredwelf8650 we're not talking about religion. They've views about everything from race, colour, economy, language, money, marriage, family and etc. You name it and postmodernism will deconstruct it like a conspiracy against human beings.
@@arminius6506 I was responding to JimmyD’s claim that critiques of meta narratives were themselves meta narratives which I do not think is necessarily true. Thus, I mentioned Kant’s rejection of Theology Dept’s power game over science and philosophy.
Ah, here it is. Yes, Foucault began his career by criticizing the physician's gaze, but by the end of his career he had firmly established the Foucaudian gaze. The problem we are now in is that we cannot even criticize Foucault without adopting a metenarrative. This shouldn't be a surprise, even Foucault admitted knowledge and power are always interrelated.
That is the most clear and concise answer to the question. It is very useful in distinguishing postmodernism from what you appropriately call radical postmodernism or anti-modernism. This video will contribute to a more careful delineation between aforementioned concepts and schools of thought, which will serve us in good stead in combating the absolute lunacy and dear I say evil of radical postmodernism/anti-modernism. It also serves as a good explanation of what Jordan Peterson means when he refers to the radical Marxist postmodernist types and when he talks about the “sleight of hand” that they have pulled off. I also hope that this will help in softening the opposition of those who were attacking Jordan Peterson on the basis of his lack of knowledge to make this distinction between aforementioned concepts. Thank you again.
Judith Butler, Bell Hooks, and Foucault are my three favorite Postmodernist writers. And, at first, I was turned off by all of them. But I don't think this was, for me, about constructing what a Postmodernist was but more about exploring the ideas of various thinkers. Reading each of these writers along with others made me realize that I disagreed with some of what they were offering but it still encouraged me to think about ideas that weren't available to me before. This, to me, is the critical thinking part that I think Postmodernism encourages. If we take strong ideas about identity politics and compare the thoughts of different writers, there's going to be some contradiction. And some of this pissed me off. HAHA! I thought I was following some line of reasoning only to be jerked back to a different direction. But then I started thinking about the term Postmodernism in art and architecture and how two seemingly contrasting things were often paired off. It may be reaching but that's what occurred to me.
I consider myself quite friendly to (original) postmodern thinking, and I think this video is quite good! As someone who quite likes Foucault and Lyotard (and Rorty and Fish), I think what happened was that crit theorists like hook and the like took certain postmodern tool they thought were useful, forgot others, and used the tools they took in ways that ended up conflicting with anything the original postmodernists would recognize. Here's an academic example. In many places, Foucault talks about the "microphysics" of power. He suggests that power is this plural thing that goes in many directions within social situations. Teachers have authority over students, but students can also exercise power over teachers - they can refuse to do what teachers say, joke about the teacher in a way that gets into that teachers head, etc. White people often have more cultural power in interactions with black people, but that surely isn't always true. Etc. So, when hooks, Crenshaw, and the like took this postmodern power analysis and ended up with the idea that structural racism biased toward whiteness is everywhere a governing force, Foucault almost surely would have objected. That's structuralism; postmodernism is POST-structuralism. Or a personal example. I have a colleague who works in critical race theory, while I'm more heavily influenced by postmdoernism. So he'll say that x situation is clearly racist. I'll say "But surely that is one description of it from one vantage point, and it can probably be redescribed in other ways from other positions." (That's something postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty would surely say.) My colleague will react in horror and say: "No! The situation literally can only be desctibed in that one way, the correct way." Even if his tools of analysis were in any way postmodern, the idea that "the situation is racist" is the one correct description of the event is clearly not a postmodern position.
The problem is that you assume the intention was benign from the get go when in reality is was just a spearhead to penetrate the social strata. They never had good intentions, they wanted to undermine the established power to replace it.
You'd have to do some heavy lifting to prove ill-intent. I assume folks have the intent they say they have until presented with good evidence to the contrary.
I'd also add that "wanting o undermine the established power to replace it" is not per se a bad motivation. It can be, but it depends on the perceived or real goodness of the existing power.
I've respected how you stay as unbiased as possible in your videos but totally support that you didn't on this. It absolutely needs to be challenged every time it's brought up in public discourse. It's extremely scary that these opinions are now very much mainstream.
Please keep up the work. It's really helpful for people like me who cannot have the time to go through hundreds of books and require concise materials. Will be back for new contents. Thanks.
I very much appreciate this video; more than your other learning videos which are also wonderful jewels, by the way. - I see many, many tenets of this thinking around me these days, and I see it dominate many people in their minds. - Thank you and your team for helping us understand each other.
Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It basically says that all scientific theories are approximations (perhaps simulations) of reality, and none of them work perfectly. For example, Newtonian physics doesn't work at light speed or at the quantum level. He says that models are adopted as a paradigm, then there is some drift, then there is a crisis where new scientific findings cannot be explained by old theories, then there is a paradigm shift. This is one of the critiques on science that has pretty solid examples. The other book I think you should mention (or even do a video on) is Berger and Luckmann's "The Social Construction of Reality." People use the term social construction all the time, but I think few have read it. Also, in interviews, Berger and Luckmann do not say that there is no objective reality, but rather that we perceive some things as real because of our socialization. They do think there is an objective, provable reality, but their work is often used to say that there is not by people who have not read it or do not understand it. I'm not through the video yet, so maybe you talk about them, but these authors come to mind.
I would not mind longer format. Had a hard time keeping up with the speed of information. Very watchable. I appreciate your effort to remain objective and the honest presentation with transparency.
Having painted myself into a corner trying to explain postmodern.... it didn't take more than a sentence to show me up😊. This clip was digestible and fair. I feel smarter and better informed for it. Thanks
Yeah and with the entire power of the establishment behind it, it's becoming a very large cult. The movement has been co-opted by the very elites they were supposed to be rising against.. and they have effectively turned them on the middle and upper middle class and caused them to divide themselves from their brothers and sisters based on color, gender, sexuality.. Confused the group as to who they were fighting against
These are a fantastic series of videos by a remarkably smart critic (smart as defined by the ability to synthesize and convey complex arguments and subjects with precision, elegance, and clarity). This is the humanities at their rigorous pedagogical best, something that is virtually never seen anymore, and such a breath of fresh air in today’s dismal academic climate.
Well, got to say I was going to scroll right past this video in my pursuit of understanding postmodernism and I have to admit I'm glad I didn't. This video came off very unbiased, honest, and fair. Which is exactly what I was looking for in such a controversial subject. Very well done! Liked and subscribed
@@madprole5361 interesting. Why was this video biased to you? I'm asking so because although I agree with the analysis that this video makes, it makes the postmodern movement to simply look wrong.
@@misterjohnfour because almost everything he said he either pulled out of his ass, misrepresented like the only two pomos he actually quoted, or pulled this info from right wing conspiracy theory pages. It's just utter garbage. Look for a video called Ryan Chapman doesn't understand post modernism by Zach's Strange Corner. He can go into it more than I can through short texts. My academic background is philosophy, history, anthropology, religious studies, and critical/literary theory partially focusing on post (modernism, structuralism, humanism) and socialist/liberation philosophy and so far every video of Chapman's I've watched is grossly incorrect and misleading. He comes off as a soft liberal version of Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. Honestly, everyone is better off not watching his channel and only reading Wikipedia. It's way way more accurate. I can't recall a single correct point he made in this video.
@techtutorvideos I don't need to when others have already and there are real philosophy channel's to learn about postmodernism and legitimate criticisms of specific authors and trends in writing and specific post modern subjects such as contemporary post modern capitalism.
The lack of cohesion (I won't even call it rationality) in the post-modern meta-narrative can best be compared to pre-modern thought of the dark ages. Thought formulated by emotion, simplistic ideological adherence and a new traditionalism. The difference is God has been replaced by the god of the collective.
I agree however it's also extremely narcisstic. My truth, my identity, my feelings being far more significant than reality or the consideration of other individuals. The collectivist element allows the narcissism to evade any personal responsibility. So, it amounts to the worst of both worlds.
Finally understood this concept! I Iove how you were so polite and respectful towards radical postmodernists. Will look forward to learning more from you!
Thank you! This was really helpful to try to introduce myself to the topic. I sincerely appreciate your honest general intellectual attitude in your way of discussing/analyzing movements, ideas, etc.
It's crazy how much anti-modern values are taught to us as children. At least here in Canada it seems to be the case. A lot of these ideas are ingrained into you without direct education of it, but rather in the way that people, such as teachers, behave around their students. Analyses such as these are critical in achieving more logic-centered future. Subbed to you man.
@@TheEvolver311 Well, the refusal of the Canadian authorities to exhume the unmarked mass graves of first nation children, who died at the hand of the the church, as this would be an insult to the Knowledge Keepers' claims, is a good example of alternative ways of knowing trumping hard evidence. Relying on unreliable radar results, doesn't cut it either.
I spent all my education years in canada and cant recall any anti modern values being taught to me. In fact the " modern" values he started this video with were exactly what my education appeared to be based around, except maybe being forced to read bible tracts in public elementary school in the 80s.
Interesting. I accept science, which tells us we are an extremely social (“eusocial”) species like bees and ants but with highly developed language and culture. We have a nature forged by evolution and therefore are not blank slates out of the womb. Although we do not have instinctual castes like other eusocial species, we are extremely status conscious (a similar construct). That is part of being a eusocial animal. Power politics (at all levels and dimensions) is an expression of this status consciousness. And certainly, the female of the species is different than the male in form and nature. Not better or worse, just different. Not 100% uniformly different. It’s all bell shaped curves of probability. This is not a white male construct, but something that needs to become self evident or we will not have a chance to coexist and sustain the species and civilization. I think extinction is more likely, which is the typical end for most species during the history of Earth. Can’t help but note that double think is just another expression of power politics and status consciousness.
Postmodern philosophy, in so far as it observes and teaches and can be summarized, is that things are usually more and more complex and it's difficult to cookie cut things neatly. Looking at one line in one book someone said once might not capture the whole picture of their ideas for example. Just like a single critique of one aspect of one society or ideology might also miss the trees for the forest. Glancing at this broad set of interrelated and non mutually exclusive topics, (or anything similar for that matter) and only their criticisms is an easy way to come away with less than is required. It takes years to come to terms with post modernism's observations and implications. On that note,there definitely is a popular twitterized kneejerk version of postmodernism, but there's an equal and opposite reaction to that very thing which is just as unhelpful. Notably, religious conservative circles and societies have been anti modern for 200+ years, does that make them a post modern phenomenon for, to varying degrees, dismissing science? And of note, if American or Western society isn't perfect, and neither is any other society, isn't it okay to acknowledge that and investigate why and propose ideas towards solutions to areas that could see improvement? Western society and culture has it's upsides, but also has it's downsides, many of which are shared across cultures anyway. The simpler modernist, and lately, reactionary elements in Western (as well as global) society demand that their culture and often religion is superior, by force if necessary, immune to criticism, always right, unquestionable etc. So, paradoxically, the "post modern left," as is criticized in this video is actually falling into older, modern habits; and conversely, the many elements of the reactionary right have been post modern (in the critical sense that is being applied to the examples of post modern left here) since modern times began. ie alt right "white identitarian," and anti rational, anti science themes. Personally, I'm on the side of the old dead Frenchies and intellectual theorists than I am for the twitterized and misunderstood, oversimplified, and minterpreted versions of these things. Jordan Peterson for example, doesn't know it, but he's probably the greatest post modern thinker of our time, yet he's convinced himself he hates post modern philosophy, but he denies truth very often and relies on his experiential interpretations almost exclusively. Part of being in the post modern era is that it is complex and confusing and it's difficult to navigate. Good luck everyone. Hopefully it will all make a lot more sense to the people of the future, near or short term. All anyone really wants is respect towards their existence, justice instead of injustice, and prosperity. Keep reading, and keep exploring, because this particular topic, and it's infinitely intertwining tendrils only gets exponentially more complex the deeper you dive, so never stop diving.
I kinda like how this man speaks; it is not composed largely of polarizing, bedazzled language in my opinion. It feels nuanced and, personally, invites me to pay more attention. Thank you.
Great video, really enjoyed the objectiveness. I can tell that you constantly stop yourself to make sure you're not just seeing something from one side.
This as well as all your videos Ryan, is absolutely brilliant, concise and so insightful. Thank you for your very important work on all the subjects you discuss. You bring such enlightenment to these arcane subjects that desperately need to be brought out, explained and dismantled.
Thanks Ryan! I've been watching Jordan Peterson videos. A lot of what he presents about post modernism makes sense to me; and I can see the effects of identity politics for example. But I'm left leaning, and work in social services, which is ripe with post modernists. I'm trying to get information and perspectives from others as a check on myself. You've done a great job of presenting the concept here.
For some time I have been sharing with people my solid belief that the true problem in everything we are experiencing now can be traced back to the Postmodernist philosophy. And it is such an incredibly hard and complex topic to try to explain to somebody in an “elevator speech” concise manner. This video is excellent, but even this will be hard for many people to understand. I think if people could understand this alone then everything else that is being indoctrinated into people today would become abundantly clear.
I would argue you have to go back to modernism. Because post modernism is just a responce to the massive failures of modernism to account for things that are unarguably subjective like aesthetics.
The issues found in PostModernism, and it's sister Post-Structuralism are not exactly brand new emergent metaphors and trends of thought. The issues go way back, skepticism is an ancient philosophical school, so is relativism. The critique of enlightenment thinking goes back at least to 1920's. There are positive and negative aspects to Postmodernism, it is not wonderful or the best, it has some strong points and some weaknesses. It must be understood in terms of the contexts it emerged from, namely, dialectics and mythology!
@@fredwelf8650 it’s also no where near as unified as often portrayed. Trying getting two postmodern philosophers in a room and 1 you won’t be able to because the label was rejected by most all it was originally applied to and 2 good luck getting them to agree on anything else either. They disagreed with each other most ferociously of all.
@@fredwelf8650 however such a portrayal will not be found in reactionary accounts of postmodernism, because it must be portrayed as unified to qualify as threat worthy of the conspiracy alleged.
@@henrymerrilees9066 Why must it be portrayed as “unified” without actually stating what the “unity” is?? Postmodernism can be introduced and further addressed simply as the criticism of the grand narratives, namely, capitalism, patriarchalism and imperialism. The main critical theories against modernism - think world wars, Cold War, inequality, maldevelopment in 3rd world, 4th world ghetto cultures in every metropolis, etc. - is feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, and ecology. It’s not skepticism, nor relativism, it is a political revisiting of the original modernist project that critiques those early trends of science, liberalism and democracy and how they have gone awry. Pomo is not about a unity of theory, it is for a multiplicity of difference.
Thank you for giving an easy, direct introduction to postmodernism. While trying to learn about different ways of thinking getting an introduction of postmodernism has been difficult at best. I will read some of these books to see the difference between post ww2 postmodernism and radical postmodernism.
Thank you very much! I've watched many videos explaining Postmodernism and it's impact on society. Yours is the best one I've found! I'll definitely promote this video to others. More people need to understand this info. It helps to make more sense of the world we're living in today. 👈👍
11:00 you perfectly diagnosed your own video(on postmodernism). If when discussing, or explaining postmodernism you use they word "they" constantly, thats a problem. The field of "postmodern theorists" represents such a broad spectrum of thinkers(most of whom, didn't call, or consider themselves to be postmodern(some outright rejecting the label). I get its hard to generalize a field of philosophy that's most widely shared principle is a strong skepticism of meta narratives, but thats kinda the point. furthermore, saying postmodernists believe that civilization and history is about oppresser, and oppressed is just dumb(as that would be a meta narrative (u know the one thing they all agree are arbitrary or non existant). It also seems your using a lot of 3rd person misrepresentations (always by radical feminist, post structuralists, and any "radical leftist") to make a point about the thing they are misrepresenting. In fact there are actual 1st person sources(quotes that are real) were fucault states the exact opposite of what you ascribe to him on identity politics(he was not a fan of what you would call identity politics, as it promotes a meta narrative and limits us unnecessarily) Also relativism is not part of postmodernism. Also you use postmodernism (the theory) and postmodern condition as if they are interchangeable (they are different things). If you want to criticize postmodernism, there are plenty of legit complaints and critiques one could make (by actually engaging with the theorists , and philosophy) but instead, more oversimplified, misattributed, and misrepresented, and strawmaning. I am not even someone who considers themselves to be in any way related to postmodernism(as an ideology, or philosophical framework), but I respect those who engage in good faith with the actual source material(or ideas of the sources(not 3rd party opinionson the source material), and therefore this video is trash, as it so casually contradicts its own purpose, through its lazy actions(meaning, that while claiming the postmodernists flippantly pick and choose thier own facts (out of context, and in bad faith) to support their beliefs(i.e. working backwards to assure the outcome you believe is true). He does the exact same thing.
So, basically, you can't say what it is, but you sure know he is wrong. Weird, almost like it is a nonsensical philosophy that shouldn't be promoted. Enlightenment, science, objective truth are just casualties to you.
Whoa, when my dad went to Berkeley, he came out a Physicist. When I went to college I studied existentialism and read Tolstoy. We are a liberal minded family. Much diversity in experience, appreciation for the uniqueness of individuals and innate respect for other cultures, combined with a focus on one’s own critical thinking and logic, and the rechecking of ones own logic along a lifetime.
When working on my graduate degrees in history we had to study how postmodernism affected historical studies and how history is told today. In many ways I despised how undefined and chaotic it was but in some ways it was very important. It helped create the "little man" history instead of the "Great man" history that was the only serious history up to that point. However, it convolutes everything and has that "you cannot know history because you cannot know what those people actually saw and thought" narrative that discounts historical facts
Great video. I don't exactly agree with your critique, even though it "resonates" with me on some level. I disagree that "radical post-modernism" is primarily concerned with equality in the first place. As Solon Simmons illustrates in his recent book "Root Narrative Theory and Conflict Resolution" applied post-modernism is primarily about the dignity of the outgroup. I'm writing a book about this right now, (focussed on deconverts within religiously dominant communities) and I also found it necessary to go back to French post-modernists (i.e. Foucault) and early so-called identity applicants (i.e., Judith Butler). For a little more nuance, I'd recommend Simmons book or Judith Butler's latest book "the power of nonviolence". I think these books REALLY embody the possibility of an egalitarian politic (i.e. equality) within a post-modernist lense. Also hello. I enjoy your videos.
Great job by Ryan Chapman. He presents a clear-headed (but not simplistic) discussion of the main themes in modernism and post-modernism, concluding with an analysis of how post-modernism is antithetical to the original modernist project.
I just discovered your channel this morning. You appear to deserve tens of millions of viewers. You help viewers understand our current state of culture and where we have come from "intellectually" (imagine having to put that in scare quotes; it has to do with the lack of logic in some very influential postmodern "thought" [there I go again]).
Thanks! I haven't read Cynical Theories but did a bit of correspondence with Helen in preparation for this video. Helen and James both know what they're talking about and are some of the best at communicating this stuff to the public.
Thank you for this. I've been a convinced modernist with postmodernist sympathies since I fist came into contact with these terms 30 years ago. You set out the distinctions between modernism. postmodernism and radical anti modernism superbly.
Really don’t know why RUclips algorithm keeps recommending this guys video. My experience shows how watching some random guy on RUclips claim superior knowledge of ideas and ideology can be dangerous. I thought I could learn from him when he talked about stuff I wasn’t familiar with, however, on ideas I have done a lot of reading on, I realised he’s actually quite deceptive, pretending to be politically or ideologically neutral.
This video blew my mind. I have been trying to have discussions/debates with people, and now I know why it seemed they were playing dumb the whole time. Postmodernism literally rejects the basis for having reasoned discussions/debates. I would do it too see if there was something I could learn from the other side, but apparently they consider themselves right, because they decided they are right. I wonder if having conversations with people like that matters at all, or just let those who ascribe to postmodern radicalism to their own devices.
Deleuze and Guattari were "the old French variety" and they wrote extensively on how you should live and how we should function within society and politics. You also seem to disregard Judith Butlers main argument that we should abandon societally created identities as a way to achieve liberation for example abandon essentialist ideals of women, which is part of the core of the post-modern argument, not what you call "radical post-modernism". I think you do a good basic overview of the French post modernists, but don't mention the heavy influence of Nietzsche and freud, and the abandonment of Marx which many would say is the core of the movement. I disagree with any characterisation of identity politics as post-modern, it just seems like you are conflating all critical theory with post modernism, the core of many Pomo texts is the abandonment of socially constructed identity as it others the self, this can easily be seen in foucaults work, along with deleuze and Guattari, and Baudrillard, these foundations of post modernism can be seen through the ideas of Max Stirner and his concept of the phantasm the precursor to post modern thought. I like the first half as a basic intro, I just don't agree with your characterisation of "radical postmodernism" as being post modern in anyway, in fact it is the abandonment of post modernism.
I’m not convinced that Arendt is smarter than Ryan. Ryan presents as an unpretentious intellectual. Not an “intellectual” but an intellectual. I very much appreciate these videos. I studied critical theory at UCSD and I claim only that I’m familiar with the topic and the more prominent figures from the survey courses I studied. I never imagined that I understood or that I “got it”. I grew more confused as I increased exposure and knowledge. These discussions are instrumental to my grip on apologetics. Well done, Ryan.
This was very informative. Thank you for the work that went in to this video. However while I agree that radical post modern philosophy is hurting our society. Let's not forget that Right wing politics is also a victim of radical postmodernism. For instance rejecting science on pandemic protocols to mitigate the spread of disease or claiming that they have a right to bear arms because that right was God given. That is a belief not based on any religious text. I like modernism and I like postmodernism I don't like it either taken to an extreme. Thanks again for making this video it was very good.
Can you actually point out to "which Science" was rejected? The question is rhetorical, you were told what the science rather than shown where it came from. And when people started to notice the inconsistencies, you were told the Science had changed. Isn't that nice?
These videos are excellent. Clearest and least likely to be attacked I've seen. But, Ryan, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE READ THE PASSAGES YOU PRESENT ON SCREEN. It is difficult to read the passage and listen to your voice at the same time. Not impossible, but to the average viewer, particularly to the unenlightened, it can be a speed bump to understanding. I would suggest the same for some of the visuals flashed on the screen. Give the viewer a chance absorb the point. Thank you for these videos. They're great.
How does this guy not have like a million subscribers???? His videos are better made and more thought out than most national shows on tv with multimillion dollar budgets…. Unbelievable. He’s by far and away the best account on RUclips
"Postmodernism" has essentially been a swear word to me until I watched this video. Thank you for not pushing your personal worldview, but instead reporting on a largely misunderstood movement. This is the most unbiased report of a controversial subject that I've seen.
Great video... I'm more than a year late going through your old videos. I think you really should do a video on the philosophy of science. It is so closely related to liberalism and why liberalism is such an adaptable system. It also helps to lay out why utopian and/or revolutionary movements/philosophies are pretty much different in type, not just in goals and methods. Anyways... The French postmodernists frustrate me even more than most other philosophers. They get so close to what I personally ascribe to, but then make one unsupported assumption and veer off into maybe not nonsense, but stuff that can be easily interpreted nonsensically. (Oh, and they somehow manage to write even more opaquely than the German modernists... a real achievement.) - Human knowledge is limited by our perceptions and pre-existing assumptions... yep - There is no one objectively correct way of viewing anything... such a thing might exist, but we can't be certain if we have that objectively correct view, so OK - Knowledge is a human construction... yep - Any efforts to "get a handle on objective reality" is inherently compromised and prone to human fallibility... again, yep - "We can never be fully sure our ideas are objectively correct"... YES - We can't say our ideas or values are superior to other ideas or values... WTF? That does not follow! And they are so so close... it is the root of a word they use all the time: "Relatiavism" We can compare the relative validity of different ideas. We can test those ideas. There will be context dependency and trying to correct for biases is quite difficult, but if we say that material reality is the ultimate arbiter, we do have a process for this. Fun fact, if you are willing to stipulate basic logic as true, that scientific process is mathematically provable to generate knowledge which has predictive utility. (A bit of an aside.) My personal view is that we do not have the ability to really get to ultimate truth. Knowledge is just probably approximately correct models which do a more or less good job matching and predicting what we perceive. Knowledge which does a better job and/or in wider contexts is more true, but that's about all we can say. And I'm fine with that. PS: "Probably approximately correct" is a term of art in computational learning theory. If you aren't familiar with it, look it up... it is either "no duh" or a bit mind bending, depending on if you've ever thought about it before or not. It is something which philosophers really should be familiar with, but often aren't. Dennett teaches very basic computation theory in his intro class for a good reason ;) PPS: Science, and liberalism, are learning systems. So is biological evolution. Even market economics can be usefully described as a learning system, at least to an extent.
Hey, I would like to add something to a point you make. You state: "We can compare the relative validity of different ideas." and while that is true, I believe that in order to make a comparison you need to choose or create a method of comparison (like choosing metrics used to compare two ideas). Therefore every comparison will fall into the limitation of our perceptions and pre-existing assumptions, because there is no all-knowing arbiter to decide on which method is objectively the most correct one. Meaning we can find examples where our ideas/values are superior to others, but because the said superiority was a result of a specific metric (on which different people might disagree is The metric to use), a general claim of superiority cannot be made. So the statement that you disagree with (“We can't say our ideas or values are superior to other ideas or values”) is in my opinion true, if we are talking about objective superiority. I believe that from knowing that smoking is linked to higher chance to get cancer, I cannot claim that my decision to not smoke is superior to someone’s decision to smoke. It is only trough observing metrics like longevity, healthy ageing, reducing medical costs, etc., that my decision can be valued as superior. However different set of metrics (or even different understanding of the same metrics) might make smoking look like the superior decision. We can have a common understanding that helps us create metrics, by which we value things. But so far I have not come across an argument that would make me believe that just because something is commonly understood it is objectively correct.
@@golashsupe "is, ought" For "is" statements, relative accuracy/truth is pretty straightforward, though contingent and context dependent. For "ought" statements, we get something like you are describing. They have to be evaluated with respect to achieving some given goal, which then converts them to "is" statements. Personally, I think all meaningful "ought" statements are theoretically convertible to "is" statements with respect to goals arising from biology. However, that is beyond our abilities, and likely always will be (computationally intractable). It is also a position I "feel" more than have a well reasoned argument for ;)
Such an awesome video. I appreciate the White Fragility book review as well. Thanks for the way you explain both sides and identify your own potential biases. I appreciate that.
This seems to be an accurate description, I can see the appeal of postmodernism after experiencing some of the atrocities committed "in the name of science" or using science to oppress a certain race or creed. However you can see the result of postmodernism's role in Marxist regimes in the 20th century following the fall of authoritarian modernism.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Your videos are so aesthetically and logically pleasing. There's a very calming simplicity to them. Please keep them coming. I wish you more subscribers. Thank you
Imagine I took all my many notebooks worth of notes on what postmodernism is and put them into a computer. The computer reorganizes everything I've learned and printed out a succinct, easy to read, final report. That' what this video is. Thank you for organizing it so well.
Ties everything up nicely…
Exactly.
The man is great at making this stuff easily understandable.
@@bingbong3643 He's missing a big component: pervasive lying for money in research institutions. Matters of principle don't delimit matters of practice.
@@spikedaniels1528 He's missing a big component: pervasive lying for money in research institutions. Matters of principle don't delimit matters of practice.
Sussinct
I really appreciate where you said in essence, "this I where I'm taking a side and no longer being fully objective." It's great to have the distinction
do you have a time stamp?
I was brought to your channel from the crt video. I was searching for information on crt that isnt ad hominen or politically charged and i found yours! The videos that you have posted thus far are eerily similar to the topics ive been pondering abt. Thanks so much for putting these out in a calm and rational manner.
Brilliant and timely piece. Thanks for making this, it's super important
I don't know how you don't have more exposure. You do a really good job of explaining WHAT postmodernists are and WHY they're so paradoxical.
Your stuff is great!
Needs to show more skin, sing, or yell :)
Only radical post-modernist are paradoxical!
ruclips.net/video/RrCzYu3hs68/видео.html
You were quite fair with postmodernism and clear about your views on the "anti modern". This was very well articulated and refreshing. Thank you.
ruclips.net/video/RrCzYu3hs68/видео.html
Fantastic resource to use to educate people. Thanks for making this.
Ryan's videos need to be shared more. The best, straight from the sources, explanations of these topics I've seen.
@@gnlout7403 He's missing a big component: pervasive lying for money in research institutions. Matters of principle don't delimit matters of practice.
Agree ❗
First time viewer, not that far into the video but already impressed!
You don't even find a title like this anywhere else. Much needed.
While Earnestly Hoping and Working Very Hard to get the grades and recommendations needed to go on to grad school, I realized that this school of thought was taking over among the teaching assistants.
That was the first step in collecting data about the unhappiness of people I knew who were in grad school--unhappiness largely based on the soulless dominance of crap ideas under the umbrella of post-modernism.
This begin my decision to give up that particular hard sought dream.🥀 😣🌾
I became a poetry and fiction writer instead.✨🥰🌸
ruclips.net/video/RrCzYu3hs68/видео.html
Indoctrination not education. Klaus Schwab's suckerboy. Make me a sandwich
The final quote at 12:07 is so scarily brilliant.
I'm very glad I found this channel. It's a nice antidote to James Lindsay's contemptuous (at times) sarcasm, which can be a turnoff. Your calm, succinct narrative is so clear, it's really solidifying my understanding of this movement. You're also very brave for making this video, so Thank You.
Everyone I start liking slowly turns more vitriolic and hateful. This type of truly honest content is so rare.
I’m just a laymen who’s interested in this sort of stuff. Is there a book or a source where I can find out all these terms and their ideas or definitions. Like modernism, postmodernism, existentialism, romanticism, and stuff of that nature?? Is this like philosophy or sociology or what does this fall under?
@@spen1433 Have you tried Wikipedia?
Yeah I remember Lindsay being really annoying and reductive. But I'm not sure where Ryan is getting his readings on wokism from other than Lindsay and Cynical Theories. Maybe Peter Bogosjian?
@@JustinFisher777 it’s hard to look at all the trees in the forest. I wanna look at the forest as a whole then focus on the trees that interest me. Not study only the trees I’m aware of, I want to know the name of the forest I’ve found myself in
Just discovered your channel today and been binge watching ever since! Really easy to digest but you don’t over simplify. We’ll informed and not partisan or ranty. And refreshingly balanced! Love it! Thank you! I learned a lot this afternoon!! Yey!
Thanks!
Great videos mate 👍, as someone who feels tired of being a tennis ball in the unending social arguing going on, these videos are really useful for my personal education and a wider understanding of the opposing factions in modern society.
Excellent video, and thanks for all the time you put into making these. Really important work and helpful for all of us struggling with the semantics.
I found this to be an incredibly helpful walkthrough of Modernism and French Postmodernism. While I wasn't expecting the critique on modern radical leftism, I thought it fit well with your analysis. The tie to what we're seeing now in the left (speaking as someone who sees themselves as a leftist) was especially powerful.
I’m glad you’re seeing this as a self-identified leftist, because it gets at why so many rational independents and conservatives are running hard to the right: We see the censorship and intellectual tyranny in the denial of objective reality as incredibly dangerous and untenable in any kind of democratic system. But, if we try to raise concerns, we get smeared as racist or misogynist, which only confirms our worst fears, and we have to dig in. If you actually believe in a just society, for the love of all that is holy, please try to rein in these radicals. It’s only going to get worse until their utterly irrational & illiberal ideology destroys us. The 2022 midterms will return Congress to R control, and the left will be apoplectic about how morally reprehensible everyone but themselves are… We’re one more summer of riots from open warfare in the streets.
This is why Macron publicly corrected the Biden WH for Radical Post-modern distortions of French philosophers.
Girl then you are sane lefty congratulations. You do not believe in tribalism.🥳🙂
Same here. A lot of socially Liberal and economically Marxist ideas appeal to me, but there’s a certain mindset within these movements that I think is detrimental to the movement. This video made it clear to me that it’s the post modernists within the movement that I dislike. I dislike the fluidity of language and the logical inconsistencies.
In all honesty it's us Lefties who have woken up that have the most power to fight this thing. We have to share this stuff with family and social circles. I've lost friends of 25 years but the more open minded ones are starting to get it.
Thanks
Just got on to this chap recently. Brilliant. He has done the hard yards and is such a clear thinker. I would share this but I doubt that most of my friends have the patience to weather the concentrated information presented here. Nevertheless I will try.
Finally a good take on this topic. Every philosopher seems to have made a video about how dumb it is that postmodernism is linked with modern leftism when Foucault would have disagreed with them on so much.
This is actually a pretty poor interpretation of post modernism.
@@ZacharyBittner Is that so?
@@ZacharyBittner Spoken like a true post modernist.
@@Pyryp2 ya, sounds like he read Jordan Peterson and misread a wiki on pomoism. Lol This guy just speaks well. Unfortunately I haven't seen a video of his that isn't overly problematic or just factually wrong. He has a loose understanding of under educated liberal pomoism and calling it Leftist pomoism. He referenced a few socialist pomos, but doesn't sound like he actually read them, just cherry picking.
@@anthonyrandazzo8836 its like mad prole said, For example, he identified Sorel as a marxist but Sorel was not a marxist. He was a syndicalist. syndicalism is like what Sorel's writing is all about so it's pretty weird to lump him in with marxists if you actually bothered to read Reflections on Violence (but I can see someone make that mistake if they just scanned through his wiki and never actually bothered to read his work). His video is scattered with all sorts of little errors like this but you can definitely feel the Jordan Peterson vibes from it.
Breaking down a complex set of ideas into digestible summary. That’s genius! You’re saying everything I’m thinking.
I don't know what creates that affect, but something about your voice is so objective. Whenever you talk about anything, even if you tell your opinion on it, it doesn't feel like im being pressured into agreeing (the way it usually is with other channels talking about similar topics). It really helps to listen to the information without my emotions getting in the way. Thanks
I love this guy! After watching RUclips hotheads bloviating about hot topics, it's refreshing to hear what Ryan has to say without having him hammering on my head.
Ryan, this is brilliant. I wish you had not slipped in the "sympathy" segment at the end for the RPM, but otherwise .... brilliant. You've even convinced me to soften ever so slightly on the Old French Dudes!
Excellent video, they keep getting better. Thank you for this great summary (I think, cannot judge well I've mostly heard Peterson talk about it). It makes sense the way you explain it and comes across honest and credible building it up from the start and explaining it's merits at first
Dude I love your channel, so good. Your thumbnails are fire also.
Appreciate it! Yeah I put a decent amount of effort into these thumbnails and I never notice anyone pointing them out. Thanks.
You're impressively sharp and insightful, great work!
Man, what excellent thoughts. I've recently read White Fragility in an ongoing attempt to understand my wife's lived experience as a black woman in the US. Though parts of the book were helpful, I came away with a feeling of dread. You've nailed the source of it, namely that Dr Diangelo's ideas are radically post-modern, are not falsifiable as a hypothesis, and implicate me and every white person as irredeemably racist. Most frighteningly, and without any solid evidence, our racism is unconscious.
Keep up the good work. Have a sub and a like and a notification button click :).
I also believe any ideology that makes a person feel guilt should take it back a notch. That being said some ideas such as CRT are helpful in the arena because it provides a way of looking at biases in its rawness and offers some solutions, but not all of which are reasonable.
@@vedantpatel6379 CRT is not racist but objective because it does not side with one side more than the other. Point to how it is racist if you truly believe that.
@@amitsunoko7270 I don't know what you are talking about. I am actually Native American. You are also going to address me as such. Do not call me indigenous.
@@amitsunoko7270 It takes some serious level of insanity to think that CRT is helpful, not racist and objective. Worse than that are only Flat Earthers.
@@m.chumakov1033 what are your thoughts on post modernism?
The problem is that encouraging critiquing metanarratives is itself a metanarratives and, worse, it's a metanarrative that blinds the follower to the fact that it is a metanarrative while also creating huge vacuums in the inevitable need for GRAND narratives. That's why everyone in these vacuums is behaving so incredibly dogmatic and religious and in extremely fundamental ways.
Very well reasoned.
Religions are meta narratives but their criticism is not; the apostate or heretic is a singularity in the face of the religious crowd and institution. Ironically, Kant, 1799 'Conflict of the Faculties,' expressed disagreement with the structure of the university which privileged the Theology Department over all others, especially lowly philosophy!
@@fredwelf8650 we're not talking about religion. They've views about everything from race, colour, economy, language, money, marriage, family and etc. You name it and postmodernism will deconstruct it like a conspiracy against human beings.
@@arminius6506 I was responding to JimmyD’s claim that critiques of meta narratives were themselves meta narratives which I do not think is necessarily true. Thus, I mentioned Kant’s rejection of Theology Dept’s power game over science and philosophy.
Ah, here it is. Yes, Foucault began his career by criticizing the physician's gaze, but by the end of his career he had firmly established the Foucaudian gaze.
The problem we are now in is that we cannot even criticize Foucault without adopting a metenarrative. This shouldn't be a surprise, even Foucault admitted knowledge and power are always interrelated.
Thanks again, Ryan. You are certainly increasing my knowledge of these various philosophies.
That is the most clear and concise answer to the question. It is very useful in distinguishing postmodernism from what you appropriately call radical postmodernism or anti-modernism.
This video will contribute to a more careful delineation between aforementioned concepts and schools of thought, which will serve us in good stead in combating the absolute lunacy and dear I say evil of radical postmodernism/anti-modernism.
It also serves as a good explanation of what Jordan Peterson means when he refers to the radical Marxist postmodernist types and when he talks about the “sleight of hand” that they have pulled off.
I also hope that this will help in softening the opposition of those who were attacking Jordan Peterson on the basis of his lack of knowledge to make this distinction between aforementioned concepts.
Thank you again.
Judith Butler, Bell Hooks, and Foucault are my three favorite Postmodernist writers. And, at first, I was turned off by all of them. But I don't think this was, for me, about constructing what a Postmodernist was but more about exploring the ideas of various thinkers. Reading each of these writers along with others made me realize that I disagreed with some of what they were offering but it still encouraged me to think about ideas that weren't available to me before. This, to me, is the critical thinking part that I think Postmodernism encourages. If we take strong ideas about identity politics and compare the thoughts of different writers, there's going to be some contradiction. And some of this pissed me off. HAHA! I thought I was following some line of reasoning only to be jerked back to a different direction.
But then I started thinking about the term Postmodernism in art and architecture and how two seemingly contrasting things were often paired off. It may be reaching but that's what occurred to me.
I consider myself quite friendly to (original) postmodern thinking, and I think this video is quite good! As someone who quite likes Foucault and Lyotard (and Rorty and Fish), I think what happened was that crit theorists like hook and the like took certain postmodern tool they thought were useful, forgot others, and used the tools they took in ways that ended up conflicting with anything the original postmodernists would recognize.
Here's an academic example. In many places, Foucault talks about the "microphysics" of power. He suggests that power is this plural thing that goes in many directions within social situations. Teachers have authority over students, but students can also exercise power over teachers - they can refuse to do what teachers say, joke about the teacher in a way that gets into that teachers head, etc. White people often have more cultural power in interactions with black people, but that surely isn't always true. Etc. So, when hooks, Crenshaw, and the like took this postmodern power analysis and ended up with the idea that structural racism biased toward whiteness is everywhere a governing force, Foucault almost surely would have objected. That's structuralism; postmodernism is POST-structuralism.
Or a personal example. I have a colleague who works in critical race theory, while I'm more heavily influenced by postmdoernism. So he'll say that x situation is clearly racist. I'll say "But surely that is one description of it from one vantage point, and it can probably be redescribed in other ways from other positions." (That's something postmodern philosopher Richard Rorty would surely say.) My colleague will react in horror and say: "No! The situation literally can only be desctibed in that one way, the correct way." Even if his tools of analysis were in any way postmodern, the idea that "the situation is racist" is the one correct description of the event is clearly not a postmodern position.
If you don’t mind educating me, what would make that first example you mentioned on a societal scale part of structuralism?
The problem is that you assume the intention was benign from the get go when in reality is was just a spearhead to penetrate the social strata. They never had good intentions, they wanted to undermine the established power to replace it.
You'd have to do some heavy lifting to prove ill-intent. I assume folks have the intent they say they have until presented with good evidence to the contrary.
I'd also add that "wanting o undermine the established power to replace it" is not per se a bad motivation. It can be, but it depends on the perceived or real goodness of the existing power.
@@kevincurrie-knight3267 Their lives speak for themselves. Also the truth bits that escape their mouths through the cracks once in a while.
I've respected how you stay as unbiased as possible in your videos but totally support that you didn't on this. It absolutely needs to be challenged every time it's brought up in public discourse. It's extremely scary that these opinions are now very much mainstream.
Please keep up the work. It's really helpful for people like me who cannot have the time to go through hundreds of books and require concise materials. Will be back for new contents. Thanks.
Best video about PM, definitely I need to check out your other videos , thanks !
I very much appreciate this video; more than your other learning videos which are also wonderful jewels, by the way. - I see many, many tenets of this thinking around me these days, and I see it dominate many people in their minds. - Thank you and your team for helping us understand each other.
Thomas Kuhn wrote a book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It basically says that all scientific theories are approximations (perhaps simulations) of reality, and none of them work perfectly. For example, Newtonian physics doesn't work at light speed or at the quantum level. He says that models are adopted as a paradigm, then there is some drift, then there is a crisis where new scientific findings cannot be explained by old theories, then there is a paradigm shift. This is one of the critiques on science that has pretty solid examples. The other book I think you should mention (or even do a video on) is Berger and Luckmann's "The Social Construction of Reality." People use the term social construction all the time, but I think few have read it. Also, in interviews, Berger and Luckmann do not say that there is no objective reality, but rather that we perceive some things as real because of our socialization. They do think there is an objective, provable reality, but their work is often used to say that there is not by people who have not read it or do not understand it. I'm not through the video yet, so maybe you talk about them, but these authors come to mind.
Maaan, I love your voice and manner. It relaxes the heck out of me.
I would not mind longer format. Had a hard time keeping up with the speed of information. Very watchable. I appreciate your effort to remain objective and the honest presentation with transparency.
Having painted myself into a corner trying to explain postmodern.... it didn't take more than a sentence to show me up😊. This clip was digestible and fair. I feel smarter and better informed for it. Thanks
The thing about being in a cult , is that nobody recognizes they're in a cult .
Most underrated comment.
They only recognizer the people who not in the cult, and they turn viciously agaí St those outside the cult.
Yeah and with the entire power of the establishment behind it, it's becoming a very large cult.
The movement has been co-opted by the very elites they were supposed to be rising against.. and they have effectively turned them on the middle and upper middle class and caused them to divide themselves from their brothers and sisters based on color, gender, sexuality..
Confused the group as to who they were fighting against
Spot on Mícheál...it's the exact same situation with stupid... stupid people don't know they're stupid.
Yes but that would apply to us as well
All the (your) 4 descriptive videos that I watched, put my brain in overdrive mode. Many thanks!
These are a fantastic series of videos by a remarkably smart critic (smart as defined by the ability to synthesize and convey complex arguments and subjects with precision, elegance, and clarity). This is the humanities at their rigorous pedagogical best, something that is virtually never seen anymore, and such a breath of fresh air in today’s dismal academic climate.
Well, got to say I was going to scroll right past this video in my pursuit of understanding postmodernism and I have to admit I'm glad I didn't. This video came off very unbiased, honest, and fair. Which is exactly what I was looking for in such a controversial subject. Very well done! Liked and subscribed
Agreed. Same thing here, almost scrolled past, but thankfully I didn’t, and I feel I have a much more concise understanding of this. 👍
Speaking calmly doesn't mean one is unbiased, honest, or fair. Didn't come off that way at all to me.
@@madprole5361 interesting. Why was this video biased to you? I'm asking so because although I agree with the analysis that this video makes, it makes the postmodern movement to simply look wrong.
@@misterjohnfour because almost everything he said he either pulled out of his ass, misrepresented like the only two pomos he actually quoted, or pulled this info from right wing conspiracy theory pages. It's just utter garbage. Look for a video called Ryan Chapman doesn't understand post modernism by Zach's Strange Corner. He can go into it more than I can through short texts. My academic background is philosophy, history, anthropology, religious studies, and critical/literary theory partially focusing on post (modernism, structuralism, humanism) and socialist/liberation philosophy and so far every video of Chapman's I've watched is grossly incorrect and misleading. He comes off as a soft liberal version of Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. Honestly, everyone is better off not watching his channel and only reading Wikipedia. It's way way more accurate. I can't recall a single correct point he made in this video.
@techtutorvideos I don't need to when others have already and there are real philosophy channel's to learn about postmodernism and legitimate criticisms of specific authors and trends in writing and specific post modern subjects such as contemporary post modern capitalism.
Thank you for these. They are excellent!
Thank you for your intellectual honesty. 💕
The lack of cohesion (I won't even call it rationality) in the post-modern meta-narrative can best be compared to pre-modern thought of the dark ages. Thought formulated by emotion, simplistic ideological adherence and a new traditionalism. The difference is God has been replaced by the god of the collective.
round and round we go @_@
It is too irrational for me to digest so I just shun it basically. Which still shocks me as to how groups of people take it in and promote it..
I agree however it's also extremely narcisstic. My truth, my identity, my feelings being far more significant than reality or the consideration of other individuals. The collectivist element allows the narcissism to evade any personal responsibility. So, it amounts to the worst of both worlds.
@@brittanydawn2633 Totally missing the point!! As are so many comments on here. (Not to mention also comments made in the video that miss the point.)
very smart take
Love your channel.
Vivid & straightforward to the point.
This channel deserves way more attention! 👏 Good job with your videos.
Just saw this. Great summary, thanks! Arendt quote in the end of the clip nailed it wonderfully.
Very well spoken, well researched, and easy on the eyes.
You Have Rightfully EARNED a subscription for managing to explain post modernism effectively in 12 minutes
Hey man, these videos you are making are so amazing. If only there were more people like you on youtube. great educational content. Thanks!
Finally understood this concept! I Iove how you were so polite and respectful towards radical postmodernists. Will look forward to learning more from you!
Nicely done video. Maybe give a table of contents at the beginning. Right now it seems like one big flow.
Thank you! This was really helpful to try to introduce myself to the topic. I sincerely appreciate your honest general intellectual attitude in your way of discussing/analyzing movements, ideas, etc.
It's crazy how much anti-modern values are taught to us as children. At least here in Canada it seems to be the case. A lot of these ideas are ingrained into you without direct education of it, but rather in the way that people, such as teachers, behave around their students.
Analyses such as these are critical in achieving more logic-centered future.
Subbed to you man.
Can you name some "anti-modern values" that you have seen taught to canadian children?
So these things are not being directly taught but are? Sounds more like culture is changing and you are having a reactionary response.
@@TheEvolver311 Well, the refusal of the Canadian authorities to exhume the unmarked mass graves of first nation children, who died at the hand of the the church, as this would be an insult to the Knowledge Keepers' claims, is a good example of alternative ways of knowing trumping hard evidence. Relying on unreliable radar results, doesn't cut it either.
@@dirkvanschalkwyk1919 so you are denying that this happened and what digging up their graves would be the only thing to make you happy?
I spent all my education years in canada and cant recall any anti modern values being taught to me. In fact the " modern" values he started this video with were exactly what my education appeared to be based around, except maybe being forced to read bible tracts in public elementary school in the 80s.
With every video watched i'm falling more in love with this channel! Respect man! ❤️
Interesting. I accept science, which tells us we are an extremely social (“eusocial”) species like bees and ants but with highly developed language and culture. We have a nature forged by evolution and therefore are not blank slates out of the womb. Although we do not have instinctual castes like other eusocial species, we are extremely status conscious (a similar construct). That is part of being a eusocial animal. Power politics (at all levels and dimensions) is an expression of this status consciousness. And certainly, the female of the species is different than the male in form and nature. Not better or worse, just different. Not 100% uniformly different. It’s all bell shaped curves of probability. This is not a white male construct, but something that needs to become self evident or we will not have a chance to coexist and sustain the species and civilization. I think extinction is more likely, which is the typical end for most species during the history of Earth. Can’t help but note that double think is just another expression of power politics and status consciousness.
These vids are so cool. They feel like a super interesting intro to logic class in college
Thank god this channel exists
Your videos are great. You put everything in a simple way while giving a broad description.
Postmodern philosophy, in so far as it observes and teaches and can be summarized, is that things are usually more and more complex and it's difficult to cookie cut things neatly. Looking at one line in one book someone said once might not capture the whole picture of their ideas for example. Just like a single critique of one aspect of one society or ideology might also miss the trees for the forest. Glancing at this broad set of interrelated and non mutually exclusive topics, (or anything similar for that matter) and only their criticisms is an easy way to come away with less than is required. It takes years to come to terms with post modernism's observations and implications. On that note,there definitely is a popular twitterized kneejerk version of postmodernism, but there's an equal and opposite reaction to that very thing which is just as unhelpful. Notably, religious conservative circles and societies have been anti modern for 200+ years, does that make them a post modern phenomenon for, to varying degrees, dismissing science? And of note, if American or Western society isn't perfect, and neither is any other society, isn't it okay to acknowledge that and investigate why and propose ideas towards solutions to areas that could see improvement? Western society and culture has it's upsides, but also has it's downsides, many of which are shared across cultures anyway. The simpler modernist, and lately, reactionary elements in Western (as well as global) society demand that their culture and often religion is superior, by force if necessary, immune to criticism, always right, unquestionable etc. So, paradoxically, the "post modern left," as is criticized in this video is actually falling into older, modern habits; and conversely, the many elements of the reactionary right have been post modern (in the critical sense that is being applied to the examples of post modern left here) since modern times began. ie alt right "white identitarian," and anti rational, anti science themes. Personally, I'm on the side of the old dead Frenchies and intellectual theorists than I am for the twitterized and misunderstood, oversimplified, and minterpreted versions of these things. Jordan Peterson for example, doesn't know it, but he's probably the greatest post modern thinker of our time, yet he's convinced himself he hates post modern philosophy, but he denies truth very often and relies on his experiential interpretations almost exclusively. Part of being in the post modern era is that it is complex and confusing and it's difficult to navigate. Good luck everyone. Hopefully it will all make a lot more sense to the people of the future, near or short term. All anyone really wants is respect towards their existence, justice instead of injustice, and prosperity. Keep reading, and keep exploring, because this particular topic, and it's infinitely intertwining tendrils only gets exponentially more complex the deeper you dive, so never stop diving.
I kinda like how this man speaks; it is not composed largely of polarizing, bedazzled language in my opinion. It feels nuanced and, personally, invites me to pay more attention.
Thank you.
Great video, really enjoyed the objectiveness. I can tell that you constantly stop yourself to make sure you're not just seeing something from one side.
I just discovered this page today. I've already watch something close to four hours of these. I can't wait to watch more!
This is a great piece, well done
This as well as all your videos Ryan, is absolutely brilliant, concise and so insightful. Thank you for your very important work on all the subjects you discuss. You bring such enlightenment to these arcane subjects that desperately need to be brought out, explained and dismantled.
Thanks Ryan! I've been watching Jordan Peterson videos. A lot of what he presents about post modernism makes sense to me; and I can see the effects of identity politics for example. But I'm left leaning, and work in social services, which is ripe with post modernists. I'm trying to get information and perspectives from others as a check on myself. You've done a great job of presenting the concept here.
I love learning from you. Thank you
For some time I have been sharing with people my solid belief that the true problem in everything we are experiencing now can be traced back to the Postmodernist philosophy. And it is such an incredibly hard and complex topic to try to explain to somebody in an “elevator speech” concise manner. This video is excellent, but even this will be hard for many people to understand. I think if people could understand this alone then everything else that is being indoctrinated into people today would become abundantly clear.
I would argue you have to go back to modernism. Because post modernism is just a responce to the massive failures of modernism to account for things that are unarguably subjective like aesthetics.
The issues found in PostModernism, and it's sister Post-Structuralism are not exactly brand new emergent metaphors and trends of thought. The issues go way back, skepticism is an ancient philosophical school, so is relativism. The critique of enlightenment thinking goes back at least to 1920's. There are positive and negative aspects to Postmodernism, it is not wonderful or the best, it has some strong points and some weaknesses. It must be understood in terms of the contexts it emerged from, namely, dialectics and mythology!
@@fredwelf8650 it’s also no where near as unified as often portrayed. Trying getting two postmodern philosophers in a room and 1 you won’t be able to because the label was rejected by most all it was originally applied to and 2 good luck getting them to agree on anything else either. They disagreed with each other most ferociously of all.
@@fredwelf8650 however such a portrayal will not be found in reactionary accounts of postmodernism, because it must be portrayed as unified to qualify as threat worthy of the conspiracy alleged.
@@henrymerrilees9066 Why must it be portrayed as “unified” without actually stating what the “unity” is??
Postmodernism can be introduced and further addressed simply as the criticism of the grand narratives, namely, capitalism, patriarchalism and imperialism. The main critical theories against modernism - think world wars, Cold War, inequality, maldevelopment in 3rd world, 4th world ghetto cultures in every metropolis, etc. - is feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, and ecology.
It’s not skepticism, nor relativism, it is a political revisiting of the original modernist project that critiques those early trends of science, liberalism and democracy and how they have gone awry. Pomo is not about a unity of theory, it is for a multiplicity of difference.
What an amazing first video. Keep it up bro!
I studied Michel Foucault and Postmodernity throughout my Time in Graduate School in the 1990s
Sorry for your loss.
Thank you for giving an easy, direct introduction to postmodernism. While trying to learn about different ways of thinking getting an introduction of postmodernism has been difficult at best. I will read some of these books to see the difference between post ww2 postmodernism and radical postmodernism.
Great!!! I wish you'd make more vids (please)
Thank you very much! I've watched many videos explaining Postmodernism and it's impact on society. Yours is the best one I've found! I'll definitely promote this video to others. More people need to understand this info. It helps to make more sense of the world we're living in today. 👈👍
11:00 you perfectly diagnosed your own video(on postmodernism). If when discussing, or explaining postmodernism you use they word "they" constantly, thats a problem. The field of "postmodern theorists" represents such a broad spectrum of thinkers(most of whom, didn't call, or consider themselves to be postmodern(some outright rejecting the label). I get its hard to generalize a field of philosophy that's most widely shared principle is a strong skepticism of meta narratives, but thats kinda the point. furthermore, saying postmodernists believe that civilization and history is about oppresser, and oppressed is just dumb(as that would be a meta narrative (u know the one thing they all agree are arbitrary or non existant). It also seems your using a lot of 3rd person misrepresentations (always by radical feminist, post structuralists, and any "radical leftist") to make a point about the thing they are misrepresenting. In fact there are actual 1st person sources(quotes that are real) were fucault states the exact opposite of what you ascribe to him on identity politics(he was not a fan of what you would call identity politics, as it promotes a meta narrative and limits us unnecessarily) Also relativism is not part of postmodernism. Also you use postmodernism (the theory) and postmodern condition as if they are interchangeable (they are different things). If you want to criticize postmodernism, there are plenty of legit complaints and critiques one could make (by actually engaging with the theorists , and philosophy) but instead, more oversimplified, misattributed, and misrepresented, and strawmaning. I am not even someone who considers themselves to be in any way related to postmodernism(as an ideology, or philosophical framework), but I respect those who engage in good faith with the actual source material(or ideas of the sources(not 3rd party opinionson the source material), and therefore this video is trash, as it so casually contradicts its own purpose, through its lazy actions(meaning, that while claiming the postmodernists flippantly pick and choose thier own facts (out of context, and in bad faith) to support their beliefs(i.e. working backwards to assure the outcome you believe is true). He does the exact same thing.
So, basically, you can't say what it is, but you sure know he is wrong. Weird, almost like it is a nonsensical philosophy that shouldn't be promoted. Enlightenment, science, objective truth are just casualties to you.
Thank you , Mr Perfectly Balanced Argument! Finaly, something worth sharing
Whoa, when my dad went to Berkeley, he came out a Physicist. When I went to college I studied existentialism and read Tolstoy. We are a liberal minded family. Much diversity in experience, appreciation for the uniqueness of individuals and innate respect for other cultures, combined with a focus on one’s own critical thinking and logic, and the rechecking of ones own logic along a lifetime.
I just discovered your channel and subscribed. I look forward to going through your published content as well as your future work!
When working on my graduate degrees in history we had to study how postmodernism affected historical studies and how history is told today.
In many ways I despised how undefined and chaotic it was but in some ways it was very important.
It helped create the "little man" history instead of the "Great man" history that was the only serious history up to that point.
However, it convolutes everything and has that "you cannot know history because you cannot know what those people actually saw and thought" narrative that discounts historical facts
14:40 The "You can't claim to believe column A and argue for column B" needs to be made into a shareable post.
I paused the video at 14:59 & took a photo with my cell phone.
Great video. I don't exactly agree with your critique, even though it "resonates" with me on some level. I disagree that "radical post-modernism" is primarily concerned with equality in the first place. As Solon Simmons illustrates in his recent book "Root Narrative Theory and Conflict Resolution" applied post-modernism is primarily about the dignity of the outgroup. I'm writing a book about this right now, (focussed on deconverts within religiously dominant communities) and I also found it necessary to go back to French post-modernists (i.e. Foucault) and early so-called identity applicants (i.e., Judith Butler). For a little more nuance, I'd recommend Simmons book or Judith Butler's latest book "the power of nonviolence". I think these books REALLY embody the possibility of an egalitarian politic (i.e. equality) within a post-modernist lense.
Also hello. I enjoy your videos.
Great job by Ryan Chapman. He presents a clear-headed (but not simplistic) discussion of the main themes in modernism and post-modernism, concluding with an analysis of how post-modernism is antithetical to the original modernist project.
I just discovered your channel this morning. You appear to deserve tens of millions of viewers. You help viewers understand our current state of culture and where we have come from "intellectually" (imagine having to put that in scare quotes; it has to do with the lack of logic in some very influential postmodern "thought" [there I go again]).
Great explanation, I'm reading cynical theories at the moment and it talks so much about post modernism that I had to get a bit of background on it!
Thanks! I haven't read Cynical Theories but did a bit of correspondence with Helen in preparation for this video. Helen and James both know what they're talking about and are some of the best at communicating this stuff to the public.
@@realryanchapman huhhhhhhh???
Thank you for this. I've been a convinced modernist with postmodernist sympathies since I fist came into contact with these terms 30 years ago. You set out the distinctions between modernism. postmodernism and radical anti modernism superbly.
Really don’t know why RUclips algorithm keeps recommending this guys video. My experience shows how watching some random guy on RUclips claim superior knowledge of ideas and ideology can be dangerous. I thought I could learn from him when he talked about stuff I wasn’t familiar with, however, on ideas I have done a lot of reading on, I realised he’s actually quite deceptive, pretending to be politically or ideologically neutral.
Yeah that's the vibe I got from this.
got any examples?
Ryan, you are doing good work! Thank you for unpacking this is a balanced way.
This video blew my mind. I have been trying to have discussions/debates with people, and now I know why it seemed they were playing dumb the whole time. Postmodernism literally rejects the basis for having reasoned discussions/debates.
I would do it too see if there was something I could learn from the other side, but apparently they consider themselves right, because they decided they are right. I wonder if having conversations with people like that matters at all, or just let those who ascribe to postmodern radicalism to their own devices.
Keep them away from the children.
you have to out-postmodernize the radical postmodernists.
That last point about people talking past one another applies to most of our left vs right arguments.
Deleuze and Guattari were "the old French variety" and they wrote extensively on how you should live and how we should function within society and politics. You also seem to disregard Judith Butlers main argument that we should abandon societally created identities as a way to achieve liberation for example abandon essentialist ideals of women, which is part of the core of the post-modern argument, not what you call "radical post-modernism". I think you do a good basic overview of the French post modernists, but don't mention the heavy influence of Nietzsche and freud, and the abandonment of Marx which many would say is the core of the movement. I disagree with any characterisation of identity politics as post-modern, it just seems like you are conflating all critical theory with post modernism, the core of many Pomo texts is the abandonment of socially constructed identity as it others the self, this can easily be seen in foucaults work, along with deleuze and Guattari, and Baudrillard, these foundations of post modernism can be seen through the ideas of Max Stirner and his concept of the phantasm the precursor to post modern thought. I like the first half as a basic intro, I just don't agree with your characterisation of "radical postmodernism" as being post modern in anyway, in fact it is the abandonment of post modernism.
I’m not convinced that Arendt is smarter than Ryan. Ryan presents as an unpretentious intellectual. Not an “intellectual” but an intellectual. I very much appreciate these videos. I studied critical theory at UCSD and I claim only that I’m familiar with the topic and the more prominent figures from the survey courses I studied. I never imagined that I understood or that I “got it”. I grew more confused as I increased exposure and knowledge. These discussions are instrumental to my grip on apologetics. Well done, Ryan.
Yeap, so many 'intellectuals' are really only on thinly disguised ego trips. It's exhausting, and a mark of insecurity in my opinion.
This was very informative. Thank you for the work that went in to this video. However while I agree that radical post modern philosophy is hurting our society. Let's not forget that Right wing politics is also a victim of radical postmodernism. For instance rejecting science on pandemic protocols to mitigate the spread of disease or claiming that they have a right to bear arms because that right was God given. That is a belief not based on any religious text. I like modernism and I like postmodernism I don't like it either taken to an extreme.
Thanks again for making this video it was very good.
Can you actually point out to "which Science" was rejected? The question is rhetorical, you were told what the science rather than shown where it came from. And when people started to notice the inconsistencies, you were told the Science had changed. Isn't that nice?
These videos are excellent. Clearest and least likely to be attacked I've seen. But, Ryan, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE READ THE PASSAGES YOU PRESENT ON SCREEN. It is difficult to read the passage and listen to your voice at the same time. Not impossible, but to the average viewer, particularly to the unenlightened, it can be a speed bump to understanding. I would suggest the same for some of the visuals flashed on the screen. Give the viewer a chance absorb the point. Thank you for these videos. They're great.
How does this guy not have like a million subscribers???? His videos are better made and more thought out than most national shows on tv with multimillion dollar budgets…. Unbelievable. He’s by far and away the best account on RUclips
"Postmodernism" has essentially been a swear word to me until I watched this video. Thank you for not pushing your personal worldview, but instead reporting on a largely misunderstood movement.
This is the most unbiased report of a controversial subject that I've seen.
Great video... I'm more than a year late going through your old videos.
I think you really should do a video on the philosophy of science. It is so closely related to liberalism and why liberalism is such an adaptable system. It also helps to lay out why utopian and/or revolutionary movements/philosophies are pretty much different in type, not just in goals and methods.
Anyways...
The French postmodernists frustrate me even more than most other philosophers. They get so close to what I personally ascribe to, but then make one unsupported assumption and veer off into maybe not nonsense, but stuff that can be easily interpreted nonsensically. (Oh, and they somehow manage to write even more opaquely than the German modernists... a real achievement.)
- Human knowledge is limited by our perceptions and pre-existing assumptions... yep
- There is no one objectively correct way of viewing anything... such a thing might exist, but we can't be certain if we have that objectively correct view, so OK
- Knowledge is a human construction... yep
- Any efforts to "get a handle on objective reality" is inherently compromised and prone to human fallibility... again, yep
- "We can never be fully sure our ideas are objectively correct"... YES
- We can't say our ideas or values are superior to other ideas or values... WTF? That does not follow!
And they are so so close... it is the root of a word they use all the time: "Relatiavism"
We can compare the relative validity of different ideas. We can test those ideas. There will be context dependency and trying to correct for biases is quite difficult, but if we say that material reality is the ultimate arbiter, we do have a process for this. Fun fact, if you are willing to stipulate basic logic as true, that scientific process is mathematically provable to generate knowledge which has predictive utility.
(A bit of an aside.) My personal view is that we do not have the ability to really get to ultimate truth. Knowledge is just probably approximately correct models which do a more or less good job matching and predicting what we perceive. Knowledge which does a better job and/or in wider contexts is more true, but that's about all we can say. And I'm fine with that.
PS: "Probably approximately correct" is a term of art in computational learning theory. If you aren't familiar with it, look it up... it is either "no duh" or a bit mind bending, depending on if you've ever thought about it before or not. It is something which philosophers really should be familiar with, but often aren't. Dennett teaches very basic computation theory in his intro class for a good reason ;)
PPS: Science, and liberalism, are learning systems. So is biological evolution. Even market economics can be usefully described as a learning system, at least to an extent.
Hey, I would like to add something to a point you make. You state: "We can compare the relative validity of different ideas." and while that is true, I believe that in order to make a comparison you need to choose or create a method of comparison (like choosing metrics used to compare two ideas). Therefore every comparison will fall into the limitation of our perceptions and pre-existing assumptions, because there is no all-knowing arbiter to decide on which method is objectively the most correct one.
Meaning we can find examples where our ideas/values are superior to others, but because the said superiority was a result of a specific metric (on which different people might disagree is The metric to use), a general claim of superiority cannot be made. So the statement that you disagree with (“We can't say our ideas or values are superior to other ideas or values”) is in my opinion true, if we are talking about objective superiority.
I believe that from knowing that smoking is linked to higher chance to get cancer, I cannot claim that my decision to not smoke is superior to someone’s decision to smoke. It is only trough observing metrics like longevity, healthy ageing, reducing medical costs, etc., that my decision can be valued as superior. However different set of metrics (or even different understanding of the same metrics) might make smoking look like the superior decision.
We can have a common understanding that helps us create metrics, by which we value things. But so far I have not come across an argument that would make me believe that just because something is commonly understood it is objectively correct.
@@golashsupe "is, ought"
For "is" statements, relative accuracy/truth is pretty straightforward, though contingent and context dependent.
For "ought" statements, we get something like you are describing. They have to be evaluated with respect to achieving some given goal, which then converts them to "is" statements.
Personally, I think all meaningful "ought" statements are theoretically convertible to "is" statements with respect to goals arising from biology. However, that is beyond our abilities, and likely always will be (computationally intractable). It is also a position I "feel" more than have a well reasoned argument for ;)
Such an awesome video. I appreciate the White Fragility book review as well. Thanks for the way you explain both sides and identify your own potential biases. I appreciate that.
This seems to be an accurate description, I can see the appeal of postmodernism after experiencing some of the atrocities committed "in the name of science" or using science to oppress a certain race or creed. However you can see the result of postmodernism's role in Marxist regimes in the 20th century following the fall of authoritarian modernism.
He’s so adorable it’s hard to concentrate on the amazing summary! So I watched twice.