How postmodernism manifests itself is context-dependent. For instance, postmodernism in the context of semantics - semantic postmodernism, if you will - seems to consist in the claim of semantic relativism, that there is no absolute truth. Whereas epistemic postmodernism has evolved into a political philosophisation about the relationship between knowledge, linguistic dominance, and power. And literary postmodernism is something else entirely, often describing, quite simply, the sort of writer who quite literally comes after modernists like Beckett, Wyndham Lewis, Joyce, and Pound. In perhaps its most pernicious manifestation, it is simply a sophistical mantle adopted by grant-truffling pseudo-intellectual showbiz personalities, of the sort whose pretensions were so brilliantly exposed by Sokal & Bricmont in the 1990's.
Nicolas Ibarra I'm so sorry. It is complete bullshit. The stage right after modernism made sense but the math of postmodernism was proven false and the lack of principles has never worked historically. It causes low birthrates even when "successfully" implemented by developed countries due to the need for high taxes and horrible productivity from the young.
me too:) am studying that book :- reading the pdf at the same time/ researching all the philosphers about whom he speaks and learning soooOOOOooo much !
winnie wildflower Canadians are saving the thinking world! Meanwhile, Americans are too distracted by Trump to see that our education system is under attack, from within. This is no joke, folks: the humanities and liberal arts programs in many public universities has been corrupted by these post-modern philosophies.
You confuse financial success and competence. They are rarely the same. Indeed, why promote the good worker when you can promote the manipulator. The manipulator didn't do their job but showed they can do the other one. Capitalism rarely reward those who earned it.
Think Critically Really, rarely? Go watch the correlation between iq and social economic status. It is definetly not 100% perfect, but its the best system we have at hand.
You may be able to 'prove' something with a study, but if your study's bad it won't replicate or hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works. And science *does* work. If you're going to respond with 'well everything's subjective, nobody can know anything'...don't bother, it's crap.
Except that he misquotes, takes out of context and deliberately lies to prop up his bullshit snake-oil philosophy. You really didn"t find it suspicious that he frames everything he likes as "individualistic, logical, objective" and anything else as "collectivist, illogical, subjective"? He tries to take on Kant as 'anti-reason' when the truth is the complete opposite and he is widely regarded as a significant enlightenment-figure that laid the foundation for our modern sense of ethics. Jordan Peterson even openly says that his philosophy is informed by Carl Jung and Nietzsche, who Stephen Hicks rails on as postmodernist 'illogicism'. This is the real danger to the west - stupid anti-enlightenment, anti-modern hacks destroying the legacy of western thought, and you brainlets who eat this trendy shite up. Even fellow 'objectivists' like him have published scathing critiques on the totally made up history and lack of substence.
Holy shit. Listening to this, now I realize how I was allured by the idea of Communism when I was in 10th grade up through early hippie days. I had a crush on Castro, my heartthrob was Che and Gadaffi of Libya was looking cute too. I went to live on a commune where all was equal and our thing in common was hatred of our government. It took me 2 weeks to figure out they were all on food stamps and welfare. I was the one chopping the wood, as they were busy eating. Appropriate the name of that dump was called "Fat City" . I hitchhiked my way back to Los Angeles and got a job and earned enough money to get an apartment and some LSD which flipped my mind back to reality.
If there is no truth, why would equality be superior to inequality? Why compensatory justice instead of the strong being fully justified in asserting their advantage?
Progress in humanisation requires the keeping in uncertainty of belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of objective justice and subjective mercy as by Mary at Luke 1:29-45 and Mt 1:24. Economist/statistician, Colin Clark, informed by Chesterton's distributive justice on this reference point of Mary was in his consecrated male female marriage in turn in late 1964 simultaneously at the UNO Food and Agriculture Organisation and Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population an incomplete reference point of "inseparable ... union and procreation" (Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12) in marriage for his son, Oliver Clark. This son's consecrated marriages, male female from 25 February 1991 then celibate on the death of his wife from 1 November 2017 in his keeping in uncertainty of belief their inseparability and qualitative equality, by completing this reference point on 31 March 2021 was a reference point for Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage on 17 June 2021 in: (a) the Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees' embezzlements' case, (b) and simultaneously in the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill case on 17 June 2021 as an unacceptable risk of fraud. Exercise of an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations by consecrated marriage identity-role, celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God in the keeping of their inseparability and qualitative equality in uncertainty of belief, advantageously combines activities of helper of the family role groups such as the Italian Parliament and the Vatican state. This 'double keeping' exercises an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of its third keeping as trinitarian as the multiplier of role gift doing processes and progress in meeting need of union of identities as the "I AM WHO I AM" revealed to Moses at Exodus 3:14.
When I was in school, in my last class of my Master's degree to finish with my teacher's education, the course was titled "Philosophical Foundations of Education". The first words out the professor's mouth were... "You know what? Marxism ain't bad!" Ha ha the whole class was nothing but socialist indoctrination! The scary thing was that all of the people in the class seemed to just repeat and reiterate the professor's postulates like trained parrots! I couldn't believe it. I was the only objector and challenged everything. Postmodernism to me was just a veiled term to me to push the whole Animal Farm mob rule mentality. Like the phase of achievement in our society is done and now because of technology, it's time that we all go socialist now and feel bad for all of the industrial build out. Just silly stuff. I can't believe how gullible people are and how they would fall for such nonsense.
ArkOmen1 , something similar happened to me many times I've my psychology course. The last one was a professor of psychoanalysis who said the following: "It's being proven that it's possible to have an all female society, in which men are only used as semen carriers." The feminists there loved it and even some (stupid) guys. It's baffling because they don't see how they are manipulated. They don't see that a man (in a position of power, nonetheless) saying this is disenfranchising himself, so it means he doesn't really believe it and actually wants something, which is human capital. By making these naive girls to be on his side. It was almost brilliant actually. A true performance.
Stephen Hicks here has a website with a video series on the philosophy of education. I am a teacher as well, and I found his video series, which presents each philosophy in its own terms, several orders of magnitude more useful than the indoctrination class I had in teacher training.
Ferox Mill - Or devolving into potatoes and extinction. I really believe that they are driven by nihilism and fuelled by resentment. Non-existence is their utopia, not just for themselves but for everyone The first step is to acknowledge that there are higher values and lower values. The next step is to fight for these higher values. They don't want war where the superior come out on top, what they want us a gradual undermining of all values, beliefs, confidence, until everyone and everything is so degraded that they have no fighting spirit left in them and just give up to servitude and death.
J. Scott Burgeson the thing is, it's difficult to describe how post modernism is not a revival of communism, but a transformation of it. Right now, the "bourgeoisie" is literally just white men, no matter of they are dirt poor or an aristocrat. When the "proletariat" is spoiled, rich hipster cunts, and the "means of production" is _white_ motherfucking _SKIN,_ well... I think what we are dealing with now is something much worse. It'd be better to call it "nihilistic racist deconstructionism" because that's what this is.
+Darran Kern: It's simple. The redistribution of economic capital by revolutionary forces was exchanged for the redistribution of social capital. Class warfare was replaced with identity warfare. Got it?
Mao would be proud. Of course the questions not asked is why did certain philosophies become dominant over others? This was not a random process, it was not a violent process. Simply put people found certain philosophies solved more problems in their daily lives than others.
I wouldn't call bullshit entirely. Though I would question whether those more 'dominant' philosophies are much easier to digest and adopt, or offer more immediately satisfaction.
revanel: agreed, once a philosophical system comes to dominate its adoption is enabled over others simply by its being woven into the fabric of society. The question I am asking is how does a minority's system come to replace the dominant one of its day? For this to happen, the emerging system must better address the needs of society vs the pre existing state.
Yes. That's how the Bolsheviks prevailed over the Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. Also the more crooked wins. Solzhenitsyn writes how, before they knew which group would prevail, they'd do things like have a meeting together, and the Mensheviks would show up at the appointed time only to be told by the Bolsheviks that the meeting had already occurred an hour before. Nice!
I think Friedrich Nietzsche would be disgusted to have his vision of "will to power" linked to Ayn Rand, who was an ideologue and equated material wealth with personal "success". Nietzsche (and Kant, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Thoreau, Einstein, et al) despised "individuals" whose sense of self came from the material world. Such people were not individuals at all, but rather part of the mob, as were those who envied them. "Power" could only come from the struggle within (self-overcoming). BTW, they all viewed politics and political manipulation of ideas the lowest form of human discourse. That said, I agree that the extreme of the post-modernist movement is based on envy and trying to acquire power from without instead of within. None of these great philosophers cared one bit about these competitive finite games. The game was infinite and one must do one's best to contribute his/her true gifts (uniqueness) to the ongoing struggle toward human enlightenment and grace. One must transform themselves, not others. They despised labels as well since they were a means of thought and social control, and a mob mentality. That "envy is ignorance, imitation suicide" (Emerson).
This strategy is just self-refuting. After all, if you *can* successfully get a person to shut up and go away, then - by definition - your power and privilege must exceed theirs.
Professor Hicks absolutely nailed it! This is just too rich… I will be sharing! I just subscribed, all it took was one video! Thank God for true Intellectuals like Hicks! 📚
I am so mortified to admit that in 1871, I was part of a drive to force the president of B.U., John Silber, to offer Herbert Marcuse a full professorship(he was a guest lecturer there at the time). Oh, the insanity of youth...is no excuse. I am burning in a rationalist hell, justifiably so. BTW, I had many seminars with the old goat, and we enjoyed a few horrid lunches at the student union. He was actually a very cultivated, seductive representative of EuroTrash, who impressed the callow youth I once was. But Reason is the sour fruit of Senescence..
The post modernists started out with some profound observations on information theory and how the brain models reality, but they extrapolated something that was really an oddity in the way the brain works into a ridiculous world view. An image that I have, an analogy, is that the world is like an art class where all different students are painting the same model, what they see. If you walk around the class you will see all different interpretations and variances in skill. Maybe even the odd Picasso. But if the whole class is drawing some version of a naked woman, but one person painted what looks to be a vase of flowers, that person is crazy. The postmodernist would say that person has a unique "truth", equally valid. And that is the question postmodernism does not answer: Sure, we see the world though a window, darkly, but if there is nothing absolute out there, how come we mostly all see roughly the same thing?
Some old fashioned expressions seems to me to be applicable to postmodernist philosophers and their followers; (1) "educated beyond their intelligence", and (2) "A little learning is a dangerous thing". Those people do not have the intelligence to think for themselves and resist fashionable ideas; but they have had the intelligence (or was it just being obedient little regurgitaters of their teachers ideas?) to have passed the university entrance exams. Pretty silly eh?
I need help understanding postmodernist epistemology. How can they make any assertions, or rank order any concepts or behavior when they reject the laws of identity and the excluded middle as well as the principle of explosion? I understand that there are forms of logic that do away with one or more of these principles of bivalence for the sake of models that are more or less fine grained than standard form. However, that is not what post modernists are doing. They are rejecting all of these things and yet still trying to make normative, prescriptive arguments. How can this be?
Steven Hicks is the best and clearest expositor of philosophy I know. If he has the fortitude to understand and explain the likes of Derrida I’m impressed.
Has Stephen Hicks ever talked to Douglas Murray? He has a lot of experience with the left in academia. I think they'd have a good conversation about it
All I can hear Hicks say is that postmodernists made great contributions to our understanding of epistemology. Then universities made curriculum and timetable adjustments to achieve proportional representation (not specifically a postmodern concept). Now, Nietzschean and Randian strategies are used to leverage power for the supposed powerless. Hence, neither the purported second or third generation is postmodernist. At best this video should be titled "contemporary power dynamics in universities in the wake of poststructuralism".
They were wrong when they said there is no truth even though its in the motto of the schools. Romans 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,"....Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 9:10 - “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
Hey, I really like your clips. I would like it if you would put the name of the interviewer in your descriptions along with that of the interviewee. I appreciate the links to the originals and everything, I just think it would be nice for the person that elicited the insight to get credit as well in the description. Or maybe I'm too lazy to click through to find out. Either way, I think it would be a nice addition. Thanks for what you're doing, I appreciate anyone who is on the side of freedom of speech (and thought! Seriously, they would punish you for thinking wrong if they could).
1:36 pretty rigorous. I'm glad he pointed out the difference between correlation and causation. People often forget that. Also glad he pointed out that a sample doesn't necessarily represent the whole. It's important to note that a subject denoted as 'regressive' is so at any scale, regarding any of its aspects. Furthermore, any that criticise the 'regressive' Ideology but have features of their own that overlap with it must indeed be regressive at heart and the prefix 'neo' shall be affixed. I'm not religious, though it is stated in the bible 'a bad tree cannot bear good fruit'. So when Osama Bin Laden scorns global warming, we can be confident that 'global warming', the 'theory' should be held in as much contempt as we hold this man himself.
This is first time I've heard a professional philosopher, one in academia, even mention Ayn Rand. The fact that her ideas are dismissed without any consideration is a travesty.
Outstanding video on many levels. Truly insightful in the best possible way. And yet distracting by the outrageously good looking chap on the left... I'm not yet ruled by my reasoning skills.
I keep coming back to Box's aphorism: All models are wrong _but some are useful._ If you reject the second half then of course madness ensues. It would be like saying that the halting problem means all computer programs are of equal value. Er, no, we run them and see which ones halt.
I am not a postmodernism admirer to say the least but there are very few videos that question whether their claims of privilege have any weight. History is littered with atrocities committed by imperialism, Colonialism and slavery and their huge impact on culture, languages, psychology, curricula, politics,... which drastically impacted many places in the world and gave unfair and unequal advantages on other cultures. So why wouldn't the first, second and third generations of those who benefited from that history come out and say what they think about it. Because constantly brandishing this "I am not guilty of what my ancestors did" banner clearly isn't working just like the "I'm not ashamed anymore of not wanting to be like you" banner isn't. Reality is that an unfair history, whether you like it or not, dictated many people's lives and many of times cruelly or too leniently. Things are going to change!
Post-modernism is a joke, but citing Ayn Rand as a credible alternative, really!!!? He completely sidesteps the fact that much of postmodernism takes its source in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, where Christian and subsequently Enlightenment morality is presented as a reflection or an idealization of one's position of weakness, therefore denying any claim of objectivity for moral reasoning. Postmodernism, at least early French postmodernism, is not left wing, it is (for the most part, since it is not a unified ideology) a radical relativist "philosophy" which is highly skeptical about the possibility of revolution or even social change, since everything is analysed as power relations, making any claims of building a better society highly dubious to its proponents.
But isn't justice in essence really a system of compensation? I don't know if postmodernism (whatever that is really) has much to do with it. This is a fascinating argument, and I do think there is some credence to it, but I'm not sure that I'm completely buying the whole thing.
Dragon's Red I don’t think that’s guilt. I don’t see anyone in Hollywood giving away their wealth or making contracts that don’t suit them. Or doing much else than yammer. There are a few exceptions but that would not be “Hollywood” then would it! If privilege is wealth and a louder voice then these people have that in spades. But guilt? Not from what I’m seeing.
A cynically nihilistic and self-serving attitude that basically says I don't recognize the rest of society as being legitimate, thus I'm accountable to no one for any reason. How convenient.
@ 1:15 The future of humankind, in terms of sheer political power- belongs to low achievers. (By this, I mean those whose feelings of self worth must be coddled unconditionally, or they will cause a great stir.) The high achievers - those who live under the burden of their own standards, and who would resent being indulged and placated, will, if intent upon long term survival as a species, segregate themselves from this rabble - with cheerful dissimulation and courageous affability...
Great content and insight. However, the recording was so bad I couldn't make out parts of the conversation. To whoever conducted this interview: Please either use better microphones or use audio correction software before releasing another like it. This will help your audience better digest this excellent content. Thank you.
I really want to hear from someone defending Post Modernism. I've never heard of Derrida or the others. How can they really be taken so seriously by intelligent faculty on campuses.
It's not clear that Hicks is aware of the difference between epistemological skepticism and varieties of metaphysical antirealism. A skeptic would question whether we can know the truth. An antirealist may hold that there's no such thing as objective truth. Postmodernists tend to fall into the latter category.
I strongly agree with Prof. Hicks, and this is a quibble, but I wish he'd check his use of "right" as an all-purpose filler-word. He probably uses it 100 times or more over this video.
we are completely fucked up by a few of PHDs Philosopher and University Professors. how the fuck is this possible. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
It seems to me that "Postmodernism" is an oxymoron invented by one group (let's call them "Us") to call another group (let's them "Them"). This oxymoron is, by definition, indefensible. Therefore, "Them" will always lose. Just like infinity, I think "Truth" is more of something to understand than something to "find". You will never find infinity. But, it's there, and you can understand it. "Modern" will always be modern, just like "Contemporary" will always be contemporary. There never will be an after Contemporary or Modern. "Today" will always be Contemporary and Modern. Unless, you're talking about the end of Time itself. "Today" will always be today, unless tomorrow comes today. Get it?
"Post Modernism" in the current context refers to those who embrace identity politics, 3rd wave feminism, neo marxism, patriarchy, "structural violence" and related pseudo academic belief systems. What are you talking about with your "us" versus "them" horseshit?
To Will Nitschke : Any time there's a (serious)disagreement, one group resorts to calling the other names. To avoid appearing childish, that name has to sound non-childish. But, it could actually be replaced by many other names. In other words, since "hip" was used a long time ago, it could be considered to be old-fashioned/obsolete/not-desired. Therefore, you might call that group "post-hip" because they're not hip anymore. Or you could call someone "post-cool" because they're not cool anymore. But all that does is destroy the meaning of the words themselves. You might as well just be honest and call them "Them", because they're not "Us".
There is a certain political ideology which has enormous power and influence in academic, education, the media class and the political classes. This is what is being discussed and there is not much that is vague about it as you are trying to imply. There is a utuber in the UK who did an extremely silly "NAZI Pug" comedy sketch and he is currently be prosecuted by the UK State apparatus for Thought Crime. These are the sorts of specific things people have to deal with now.
To Will Nitschke : I was not trying to address the issue/content itself, but rather the name-tag given to it. One of my pet peeves is the mis-labeling of things.
James Lindsay’s book cynical theories seems to me to argue the same exact point. So both of them seem to have identified the same stages steps of postmodernism…
When all this came at me at school I just found legion of the unhappy. These deliberate folks determined to be sad. I said "fuck that," and got happier than them.
This chat may seem a well counter argument/refutation for the ones who haven’t read anything from the thinkers that are mentioned however, neither Foucault nor Lyotard were Marxist and the perverse thoughts on Nietzche’s discourse is completely wrong. In Antichrist; Nietzche despised pity and he believed that it degenerated the society. Because it was like being Christ and trying to sell the virtues. (Altough his father was a man of religion he looked down on Christianity and Budhism because they were telling people to quit from living a lavish life “plus if they were strong they were pitying and confessing the sins they have done” and sending them to temples or in other terms he said that it was making them to become nihlists) If you feel that notion(being strong and because of that pitying the weak) than it is certain that you may empathise and than feel bad about yourself because you are strong and this would spread the weakness all over. He rejected this idea and (also nihilism) encouraged the idea of being better than others which he called “Ubermensch” (Later on Nazi’s used this idea to create their freak aryan race “which they couldn’t”) When we come to Foucault and Lyotard part; Foucault tried to answer the question of power relations of course in his private life it can be seen that he was strongly cheering the idea of “revolution” but he was not a Marxist he tried to point out the underlying discourses on the conditions of how the minorities, outcasts, mentally ill etc. became to be as they were in his time. For that he recoined the term archeology used it in his own way, than he borrowed genealogy which was from Nietzche and than he looked at power relations. Unlike Marx’s or Hegel’s idea of power he said that “Power relations are everywhere you can find them between husband to wife, wife to husband, wife to child etc. but the most important difference is he said when there is a force than there is a resistance” (I didn’t mention panopticon but it you can look at that concept) He never came up with solutions to the problems. What he did was just pointing out situations that were dire for him and coining new terms. (I am talking about his discourse, in his real life he fought for the terrible conditions of prisons in France) I’ll tell Lyotard briefly he combined Freud’s and Marx’s ideas and found missing spots criticised those thinkers. He was against political views because he thought that reality is based on singular events and there would be no rational one idea that can explain that thought. He was against political thoughts because politics is generally thought to be constructed on accurate representations of reality.
Does anyone understand that stating that there are no absolute truths is not at all what Hicks is saying? He's conflating a viewpoint with an action to a terminal point. This is so easy to point out that I'm not sure why anyone hasn't yet....
Excellent speech by Hicks, but why do you... whoever occupies the left half of the image, think it's helping to see your silent face with your earphone cables hanging down? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it just doesn't help. Kinda creepy.
Near the start of the video, the speaker more or less assumes that postmodernism is informed by Marxism. I think this is roughly a case of begging the question. Perhaps his arguments follow, but there is no apparent basis for the assumption.
Both Hicks and Peterson like to watch themselves talk. And hear themselves talk. And both enjoy their nice hair, relatively substantial stature, well-aged, rugged good looks, and throngs of swooning young men and women. I think they both may be homosexuals. Nice vid thx.
Rorty was not a postmodernist. He was a neo-pragmatist who engaged with the works of postmodern writers. He rejected the cynicism of Foucault and co. "Sitting down and having a conversation on what the truth is" sounds pretty pragmatic to me. Rorty may not have believed in "absolute and eternal" truths, but he was not an epistemic nihilist.
"Those who have privilege, they don't have equal rights anymore." Sounds like an oxymoron. Isn't privilege basically an unearned right? (BTW, I don't think anyones voice should be silenced, liberal or conservative). Are they demonizing the act of acknowledging ones own privileges? Why not check your own privileges, and conclude you have not earned them (for better of worse)?
Postmodernism is a tool that allows us to take any idea, question, or issue, then manipulate language until the answer you want comes out.
Derserves a few more upvotes. Chomsky said (I think it was him) that pomo is just tool to gain power and you comment nails the "how".
Kyle Clements Nice trick in the short term
Kyle Clements Modern Gymnosophists?
Very succinctly and well put.
How postmodernism manifests itself is context-dependent. For instance, postmodernism in the context of semantics - semantic postmodernism, if you will - seems to consist in the claim of semantic relativism, that there is no absolute truth. Whereas epistemic postmodernism has evolved into a political philosophisation about the relationship between knowledge, linguistic dominance, and power. And literary postmodernism is something else entirely, often describing, quite simply, the sort of writer who quite literally comes after modernists like Beckett, Wyndham Lewis, Joyce, and Pound. In perhaps its most pernicious manifestation, it is simply a sophistical mantle adopted by grant-truffling pseudo-intellectual showbiz personalities, of the sort whose pretensions were so brilliantly exposed by Sokal & Bricmont in the 1990's.
A very useful encapsulation of how academia degraded and destroyed itself.
Amazing. I'm from Latin America and postmodernism is very popular in academia (no wonder we're still struggling to develop).
Nicolas Ibarra
I'm so sorry. It is complete bullshit. The stage right after modernism made sense but the math of postmodernism was proven false and the lack of principles has never worked historically.
It causes low birthrates even when "successfully" implemented by developed countries due to the need for high taxes and horrible productivity from the young.
Succinctly encapsulated...
Sacratease For now, but they have been silenced on any matters of social implications.
Sacratease: For the moment.
I am so grateful for Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Thank you so much.
winnie wildflower - Learned about Hicks via Peterson. He posted his audiobook about explaining postmodernism on his CZcams and it's very informative.
me too:) am studying that book :- reading the pdf at the same time/ researching all the philosphers about whom he speaks and learning soooOOOOooo much !
I think you mean his book Intellectual Impostures. I've read it twice and agree with you, it's bloody brilliant.
winnie wildflower Canadians are saving the thinking world! Meanwhile, Americans are too distracted by Trump to see that our education system is under attack, from within. This is no joke, folks: the humanities and liberal arts programs in many public universities has been corrupted by these post-modern philosophies.
These are superficial anti progressive crabs that have never transgressed their pigeon holes.
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"
Hierarchies of competency replaced by hierarchies of victimhood. Ha, yeah what could possibly go wrong?
That's a very neat way to describe it. I like it.
You confuse financial success and competence. They are rarely the same. Indeed, why promote the good worker when you can promote the manipulator. The manipulator didn't do their job but showed they can do the other one. Capitalism rarely reward those who earned it.
Think Critically Really, rarely? Go watch the correlation between iq and social economic status. It is definetly not 100% perfect, but its the best system we have at hand.
I can make a study that proves or conversely fails to prove anything with statistics. The existence of the study proves more than the results do.
You may be able to 'prove' something with a study, but if your study's bad it won't replicate or hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works. And science *does* work. If you're going to respond with 'well everything's subjective, nobody can know anything'...don't bother, it's crap.
Postmodernism is meant to be discussed at length at dinner parties with a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other.
Stephen Hicks' book Explaining Postmodernism is brilliant if you want a deeper understanding of this topic.
Except that he misquotes, takes out of context and deliberately lies to prop up his bullshit snake-oil philosophy. You really didn"t find it suspicious that he frames everything he likes as "individualistic, logical, objective" and anything else as "collectivist, illogical, subjective"? He tries to take on Kant as 'anti-reason' when the truth is the complete opposite and he is widely regarded as a significant enlightenment-figure that laid the foundation for our modern sense of ethics. Jordan Peterson even openly says that his philosophy is informed by Carl Jung and Nietzsche, who Stephen Hicks rails on as postmodernist 'illogicism'. This is the real danger to the west - stupid anti-enlightenment, anti-modern hacks destroying the legacy of western thought, and you brainlets who eat this trendy shite up. Even fellow 'objectivists' like him have published scathing critiques on the totally made up history and lack of substence.
Stephen Hicks is a hack.
Thanks for this!
It's also great if you know 0 about kant and want to fuck your brain up with nonsense
I LOVE this video! Stephen Hicks' clarity and directness are so to the point, and the disturbed perplexity in his facial expressions - says it all.
I watch this in June 202 and everything Stephen Hicks said has come to fruitation.
And fruition.
Holy shit. Listening to this, now I realize how I was allured by the idea of Communism when I was in 10th grade up through early hippie days. I had a crush on Castro, my heartthrob was Che and Gadaffi of Libya was looking cute too. I went to live on a commune where all was equal and our thing in common was hatred of our government. It took me 2 weeks to figure out they were all on food stamps and welfare. I was the one chopping the wood, as they were busy eating. Appropriate the name of that dump was called "Fat City" . I hitchhiked my way back to Los Angeles and got a job and earned enough money to get an apartment and some LSD which flipped my mind back to reality.
If there is no truth, why would equality be superior to inequality? Why compensatory justice instead of the strong being fully justified in asserting their advantage?
If there is no truth. Do words have meaning?
They believe the strong ARE fully justified in asserting themselves. The strong in their view are the masses, or the mob.
Progress in humanisation requires the keeping in uncertainty of belief of the inseparability and qualitative equality of objective justice and subjective mercy as by Mary at Luke 1:29-45 and Mt 1:24.
Economist/statistician, Colin Clark, informed by Chesterton's distributive justice on this reference point of Mary was in his consecrated male female marriage in turn in late 1964 simultaneously at the UNO Food and Agriculture Organisation and Pope St Paul V1's Commission on Population an incomplete reference point of "inseparable ... union and procreation" (Humanae Vitae, 1968, 12) in marriage for his son, Oliver Clark.
This son's consecrated marriages, male female from 25 February 1991 then celibate on the death of his wife from 1 November 2017 in his keeping in uncertainty of belief their inseparability and qualitative equality, by completing this reference point on 31 March 2021 was a reference point for Pope Francis' consecrated celibate marriage on 17 June 2021 in:
(a) the Cardinal Angelo Becciu and nine other Vatican state citizens/employees' embezzlements' case,
(b) and simultaneously in the Italian state Parliament "Zan" anti-homophobia bill case on 17 June 2021 as an unacceptable risk of fraud.
Exercise of an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations by consecrated marriage identity-role, celibate vowed to man in Christ or male female vowed to God in the keeping of their inseparability and qualitative equality in uncertainty of belief, advantageously combines activities of helper of the family role groups such as the Italian Parliament and the Vatican state.
This 'double keeping' exercises an absolute power of simultaneous authorisations of its third keeping as trinitarian as the multiplier of role gift doing processes and progress in meeting need of union of identities as the "I AM WHO I AM" revealed to Moses at Exodus 3:14.
When I was in school, in my last class of my Master's degree to finish with my teacher's education, the course was titled "Philosophical Foundations of Education". The first words out the professor's mouth were... "You know what? Marxism ain't bad!" Ha ha the whole class was nothing but socialist indoctrination! The scary thing was that all of the people in the class seemed to just repeat and reiterate the professor's postulates like trained parrots! I couldn't believe it. I was the only objector and challenged everything. Postmodernism to me was just a veiled term to me to push the whole Animal Farm mob rule mentality. Like the phase of achievement in our society is done and now because of technology, it's time that we all go socialist now and feel bad for all of the industrial build out. Just silly stuff. I can't believe how gullible people are and how they would fall for such nonsense.
ArkOmen1 , something similar happened to me many times I've my psychology course. The last one was a professor of psychoanalysis who said the following:
"It's being proven that it's possible to have an all female society, in which men are only used as semen carriers."
The feminists there loved it and even some (stupid) guys. It's baffling because they don't see how they are manipulated. They don't see that a man (in a position of power, nonetheless) saying this is disenfranchising himself, so it means he doesn't really believe it and actually wants something, which is human capital. By making these naive girls to be on his side.
It was almost brilliant actually. A true performance.
I would have replied "anything is possible depending on the level of tyranny you impose, until it stops working"
Stephen Hicks here has a website with a video series on the philosophy of education. I am a teacher as well, and I found his video series, which presents each philosophy in its own terms, several orders of magnitude more useful than the indoctrination class I had in teacher training.
@@edmilsoneletrica - it seems grotesque to me.
@@Laguero 😊
Hick and/or Peterson should do an animated series wherein they explain the various high-profile ideologies plaguing western society.
and the fourth stage is open war
Civil war you mean...unfortunately inevitable I'm afrad
It'll look like the Rwanda genocide.
Ferox Mill - Or devolving into potatoes and extinction.
I really believe that they are driven by nihilism and fuelled by resentment. Non-existence is their utopia, not just for themselves but for everyone
The first step is to acknowledge that there are higher values and lower values.
The next step is to fight for these higher values.
They don't want war where the superior come out on top, what they want us a gradual undermining of all values, beliefs, confidence, until everyone and everything is so degraded that they have no fighting spirit left in them and just give up to servitude and death.
The good thing is , their side is full of losers and weirdos so we will be able to flatten em in the war.
Better title: How Postmodernism Became Neo-Communism
J. Scott Burgeson when was post-modernism ever not communism? Post-modernism came directly from Marxism and Leninism.
+Darran Kern: Do you understand what the prefix "-neo" means?
J. Scott Burgeson the thing is, it's difficult to describe how post modernism is not a revival of communism, but a transformation of it.
Right now, the "bourgeoisie" is literally just white men, no matter of they are dirt poor or an aristocrat.
When the "proletariat" is spoiled, rich hipster cunts, and the "means of production" is _white_ motherfucking _SKIN,_ well...
I think what we are dealing with now is something much worse. It'd be better to call it "nihilistic racist deconstructionism" because that's what this is.
+Darran Kern: It's simple. The redistribution of economic capital by revolutionary forces was exchanged for the redistribution of social capital. Class warfare was replaced with identity warfare. Got it?
J. Scott Burgeson that's basically what I said.
Mao would be proud. Of course the questions not asked is why did certain philosophies become dominant over others? This was not a random process, it was not a violent process. Simply put people found certain philosophies solved more problems in their daily lives than others.
Bullshit.
I wouldn't call bullshit entirely. Though I would question whether those more 'dominant' philosophies are much easier to digest and adopt, or offer more immediately satisfaction.
revanel: agreed, once a philosophical system comes to dominate its adoption is enabled over others simply by its being woven into the fabric of society. The question I am asking is how does a minority's system come to replace the dominant one of its day? For this to happen, the emerging system must better address the needs of society vs the pre existing state.
Benjamin Briquet thanks for the reference, I I will put it on my list
Yes. That's how the Bolsheviks prevailed over the Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. Also the more crooked wins. Solzhenitsyn writes how, before they knew which group would prevail, they'd do things like have a meeting together, and the Mensheviks would show up at the appointed time only to be told by the Bolsheviks that the meeting had already occurred an hour before. Nice!
I think Friedrich Nietzsche would be disgusted to have his vision of "will to power" linked to Ayn Rand, who was an ideologue and equated material wealth with personal "success". Nietzsche (and Kant, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Thoreau, Einstein, et al) despised "individuals" whose sense of self came from the material world. Such people were not individuals at all, but rather part of the mob, as were those who envied them. "Power" could only come from the struggle within (self-overcoming). BTW, they all viewed politics and political manipulation of ideas the lowest form of human discourse. That said, I agree that the extreme of the post-modernist movement is based on envy and trying to acquire power from without instead of within. None of these great philosophers cared one bit about these competitive finite games. The game was infinite and one must do one's best to contribute his/her true gifts (uniqueness) to the ongoing struggle toward human enlightenment and grace. One must transform themselves, not others. They despised labels as well since they were a means of thought and social control, and a mob mentality. That "envy is ignorance, imitation suicide" (Emerson).
This strategy is just self-refuting.
After all, if you *can* successfully get a person to shut up and go away, then - by definition - your power and privilege must exceed theirs.
Nick Williams i never thought about it that way hahaha
Professor Hicks absolutely nailed it!
This is just too rich… I will be sharing!
I just subscribed, all it took was one video!
Thank God for true Intellectuals like Hicks! 📚
I am so mortified to admit that in 1871, I was part of a drive to force the president of B.U., John Silber, to offer Herbert Marcuse a full professorship(he was a guest lecturer there at the time). Oh, the insanity of youth...is no excuse. I am burning in a rationalist hell, justifiably so. BTW, I had many seminars with the old goat, and we enjoyed a few horrid lunches at the student union. He was actually a very cultivated, seductive representative of EuroTrash, who impressed the callow youth I once was. But Reason is the sour fruit of Senescence..
OOOPS! 1971!!! Typo!!!!
Spencer Shears - By their fruits ye shall know them...
The post modernists started out with some profound observations on information theory and how the brain models reality, but they extrapolated something that was really an oddity in the way the brain works into a ridiculous world view. An image that I have, an analogy, is that the world is like an art class where all different students are painting the same model, what they see. If you walk around the class you will see all different interpretations and variances in skill. Maybe even the odd Picasso. But if the whole class is drawing some version of a naked woman, but one person painted what looks to be a vase of flowers, that person is crazy. The postmodernist would say that person has a unique "truth", equally valid. And that is the question postmodernism does not answer: Sure, we see the world though a window, darkly, but if there is nothing absolute out there, how come we mostly all see roughly the same thing?
Some old fashioned expressions seems to me to be applicable to postmodernist philosophers and their followers; (1) "educated beyond their intelligence", and (2) "A little learning is a dangerous thing". Those people do not have the intelligence to think for themselves and resist fashionable ideas; but they have had the intelligence (or was it just being obedient little regurgitaters of their teachers ideas?) to have passed the university entrance exams. Pretty silly eh?
Thank you for this video. It will help me on making the case that postmodernism has gone too far.
Lots and lots of "us" don't have "guilt" we have "pride" . . . and power, so the missing ingredient is STRENGTH and WILLPOWER.
I need help understanding postmodernist epistemology. How can they make any assertions, or rank order any concepts or behavior when they reject the laws of identity and the excluded middle as well as the principle of explosion?
I understand that there are forms of logic that do away with one or more of these principles of bivalence for the sake of models that are more or less fine grained than standard form. However, that is not what post modernists are doing. They are rejecting all of these things and yet still trying to make normative, prescriptive arguments. How can this be?
Good comment.
That was awesome
Steven Hicks is the best and clearest expositor of philosophy I know. If he has the fortitude to understand and explain the likes of Derrida I’m impressed.
Concise, instructive and covers the point in question. Very, very, well done! Thank you both very much.
I subscriberd based on this vid.
With ever growing population, we must let everything go, in order for the majority to be pleased...
Hands down-The best explanation I've ever heard of exactly what post-modernism is. Thank you.
The enemy who was silenced is the middle class not the very rich .
Has Stephen Hicks ever talked to Douglas Murray? He has a lot of experience with the left in academia. I think they'd have a good conversation about it
All I can hear Hicks say is that postmodernists made great contributions to our understanding of epistemology. Then universities made curriculum and timetable adjustments to achieve proportional representation (not specifically a postmodern concept). Now, Nietzschean and Randian strategies are used to leverage power for the supposed powerless. Hence, neither the purported second or third generation is postmodernist. At best this video should be titled "contemporary power dynamics in universities in the wake of poststructuralism".
Humans are so smart, they can divide themselves in conceptual groups of ideology.
They were wrong when they said there is no truth even though its in the motto of the schools. Romans 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,"....Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 9:10 - “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."
The 'unintended' consequences of moral relativism, multiculturalism and subjective reality.
An astute observation on how we have arrived to the age of grievance at the expense of free speech
Wow he nailed it. That's exactly the same as what's happening in my work
Hey, I really like your clips. I would like it if you would put the name of the interviewer in your descriptions along with that of the interviewee. I appreciate the links to the originals and everything, I just think it would be nice for the person that elicited the insight to get credit as well in the description. Or maybe I'm too lazy to click through to find out. Either way, I think it would be a nice addition. Thanks for what you're doing, I appreciate anyone who is on the side of freedom of speech (and thought! Seriously, they would punish you for thinking wrong if they could).
The interviewer here is Mark Michael Lewis.
1:36 pretty rigorous. I'm glad he pointed out the difference between correlation and causation. People often forget that. Also glad he pointed out that a sample doesn't necessarily represent the whole. It's important to note that a subject denoted as 'regressive' is so at any scale, regarding any of its aspects. Furthermore, any that criticise the 'regressive' Ideology but have features of their own that overlap with it must indeed be regressive at heart and the prefix 'neo' shall be affixed. I'm not religious, though it is stated in the bible 'a bad tree cannot bear good fruit'. So when Osama Bin Laden scorns global warming, we can be confident that 'global warming', the 'theory' should be held in as much contempt as we hold this man himself.
This is first time I've heard a professional philosopher, one in academia, even mention Ayn Rand. The fact that her ideas are dismissed without any consideration is a travesty.
Wish you ran some noise reduction on this cleaned the sound up as it was worth some attention.
It’d be very interesting to have a discussion between Hicks and Peterson.
It’s 2023 now. To think this conversation happened before George Floyd is amazing.
Outstanding video on many levels. Truly insightful in the best possible way. And yet distracting by the outrageously good looking chap on the left... I'm not yet ruled by my reasoning skills.
I keep coming back to Box's aphorism: All models are wrong _but some are useful._ If you reject the second half then of course madness ensues.
It would be like saying that the halting problem means all computer programs are of equal value. Er, no, we run them and see which ones halt.
wow, what a great channel with high-quality videos through and through. thanks man!
I am not a postmodernism admirer to say the least but there are very few videos that question whether their claims of privilege have any weight. History is littered with atrocities committed by imperialism, Colonialism and slavery and their huge impact on culture, languages, psychology, curricula, politics,... which drastically impacted many places in the world and gave unfair and unequal advantages on other cultures. So why wouldn't the first, second and third generations of those who benefited from that history come out and say what they think about it. Because constantly brandishing this "I am not guilty of what my ancestors did" banner clearly isn't working just like the "I'm not ashamed anymore of not wanting to be like you" banner isn't. Reality is that an unfair history, whether you like it or not, dictated many people's lives and many of times cruelly or too leniently. Things are going to change!
Post-modernism is a joke, but citing Ayn Rand as a credible alternative, really!!!? He completely sidesteps the fact that much of postmodernism takes its source in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, where Christian and subsequently Enlightenment morality is presented as a reflection or an idealization of one's position of weakness, therefore denying any claim of objectivity for moral reasoning. Postmodernism, at least early French postmodernism, is not left wing, it is (for the most part, since it is not a unified ideology) a radical relativist "philosophy" which is highly skeptical about the possibility of revolution or even social change, since everything is analysed as power relations, making any claims of building a better society highly dubious to its proponents.
i love stephen he seems great
It is so easy to critique relativism when you offer no alternate solution and completely ignore the entire history of epistemology.
No alternative lol, what did we have before this clown 🤡 nonsense ! Wake up
But isn't justice in essence really a system of compensation? I don't know if postmodernism (whatever that is really) has much to do with it.
This is a fascinating argument, and I do think there is some credence to it, but I'm not sure that I'm completely buying the whole thing.
The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase
Dead white European male: Alfred Korzybski
Science and Sanity; General Semantics
Thanks. I'm just waiting to see the post modernists requiring as many book written by geniouses as idiots.
I never met a privileged person who felt guilty about it. Where are these people?
john miller Hollywood actors for one...
Dragon's Red I don’t think that’s guilt. I don’t see anyone in Hollywood giving away their wealth or making contracts that don’t suit them. Or doing much else than yammer. There are a few exceptions but that would not be “Hollywood” then would it! If privilege is wealth and a louder voice then these people have that in spades. But guilt? Not from what I’m seeing.
So that funny that you see the guy on left the whole time listening. Great insights.
They cut the video short. Just before they're going to talk about the gulags. Very disappointing.
It sounds like Second wave is built around Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay. So, then, the Frankfurt school would be second wave postmodernism?
¿Is epistemology the study of what should i do cognitively?
and ¿Is ethics the study of what should i do extisnentialy?
Tulio - Epistemology is the study of what we can know. Ethics is the study of what we should do.
Third generation post modernism in the 1980s was described as a return to classicism.
A cynically nihilistic and self-serving attitude that basically says I don't recognize the rest of society as being legitimate, thus I'm accountable to no one for any reason. How convenient.
@ 1:15 The future of humankind, in terms of sheer political power- belongs to low achievers. (By this, I mean those whose feelings of self worth must be coddled unconditionally, or they will cause
a great stir.) The high achievers - those who live under the burden of their own standards, and who would resent being indulged and placated, will, if intent upon long term survival as a species,
segregate themselves from this rabble - with cheerful dissimulation and courageous affability...
Great content and insight. However, the recording was so bad I couldn't make out parts of the conversation. To whoever conducted this interview: Please either use better microphones or use audio correction software before releasing another like it. This will help your audience better digest this excellent content.
Thank you.
Stephen Hicks helps me become a total convert to postmodernism.
I really want to hear from someone defending Post Modernism. I've never heard of Derrida or the others. How can they really be taken so seriously by intelligent faculty on campuses.
Power.
You can check your privilege if you want to play their ideological game, or you can tell them to naff off.
It's not clear that Hicks is aware of the difference between epistemological skepticism and varieties of metaphysical antirealism. A skeptic would question whether we can know the truth. An antirealist may hold that there's no such thing as objective truth. Postmodernists tend to fall into the latter category.
I strongly agree with Prof. Hicks, and this is a quibble, but I wish he'd check his use of "right" as an all-purpose filler-word. He probably uses it 100 times or more over this video.
If you feel you stand to have something to lose, you will hate this video and any video by JBP.
we are completely fucked up by a few of PHDs Philosopher and University Professors. how the fuck is this possible. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.
It seems to me that "Postmodernism" is an oxymoron invented by one group (let's call them "Us") to call another group (let's them "Them"). This oxymoron is, by definition, indefensible. Therefore, "Them" will always lose. Just like infinity, I think "Truth" is more of something to understand than something to "find". You will never find infinity. But, it's there, and you can understand it. "Modern" will always be modern, just like "Contemporary" will always be contemporary. There never will be an after Contemporary or Modern. "Today" will always be Contemporary and Modern. Unless, you're talking about the end of Time itself. "Today" will always be today, unless tomorrow comes today. Get it?
"Post Modernism" in the current context refers to those who embrace identity politics, 3rd wave feminism, neo marxism, patriarchy, "structural violence" and related pseudo academic belief systems. What are you talking about with your "us" versus "them" horseshit?
To Will Nitschke : Any time there's a (serious)disagreement, one group resorts to calling the other names. To avoid appearing childish, that name has to sound non-childish. But, it could actually be replaced by many other names. In other words, since "hip" was used a long time ago, it could be considered to be old-fashioned/obsolete/not-desired. Therefore, you might call that group "post-hip" because they're not hip anymore. Or you could call someone "post-cool" because they're not cool anymore. But all that does is destroy the meaning of the words themselves. You might as well just be honest and call them "Them", because they're not "Us".
There is a certain political ideology which has enormous power and influence in academic, education, the media class and the political classes. This is what is being discussed and there is not much that is vague about it as you are trying to imply. There is a utuber in the UK who did an extremely silly "NAZI Pug" comedy sketch and he is currently be prosecuted by the UK State apparatus for Thought Crime. These are the sorts of specific things people have to deal with now.
To Will Nitschke : I was not trying to address the issue/content itself, but rather the name-tag given to it. One of my pet peeves is the mis-labeling of things.
6:00
In other words kill success so failure thrives.
Sounds brilliant for ruling class to sucker working class into doing.
Im losing hope.
Well if all narratives are equally true then how did some come to dominate?
James Lindsay’s book cynical theories seems to me to argue the same exact point. So both of them seem to have identified the same stages steps of postmodernism…
It occurs to me that the Common Core curriculum is based on post modernism... as post modernism is defined here.
The guy on the left looks like he's about to cry
Who controls the definition of mental health? Think about that deeply.
In the end it results in taking other peoples shit. Not your own shit, others. They become the arbiters. They become like God.
When all this came at me at school I just found legion of the unhappy. These deliberate folks determined to be sad. I said "fuck that," and got happier than them.
Since they don't beleive in truth and individual, they world is only about power hiearchies represented by collectives.
This chat may seem a well counter argument/refutation for the ones who haven’t read anything from the thinkers that are mentioned however, neither Foucault nor Lyotard were Marxist and the perverse thoughts on Nietzche’s discourse is completely wrong. In Antichrist; Nietzche despised pity and he believed that it degenerated the society. Because it was like being Christ and trying to sell the virtues. (Altough his father was a man of religion he looked down on Christianity and Budhism because they were telling people to quit from living a lavish life “plus if they were strong they were pitying and confessing the sins they have done” and sending them to temples or in other terms he said that it was making them to become nihlists) If you feel that notion(being strong and because of that pitying the weak) than it is certain that you may empathise and than feel bad about yourself because you are strong and this would spread the weakness all over. He rejected this idea and (also nihilism) encouraged the idea of being better than others which he called “Ubermensch” (Later on Nazi’s used this idea to create their freak aryan race “which they couldn’t”) When we come to Foucault and Lyotard part; Foucault tried to answer the question of power relations of course in his private life it can be seen that he was strongly cheering the idea of “revolution” but he was not a Marxist he tried to point out the underlying discourses on the conditions of how the minorities, outcasts, mentally ill etc. became to be as they were in his time. For that he recoined the term archeology used it in his own way, than he borrowed genealogy which was from Nietzche and than he looked at power relations. Unlike Marx’s or Hegel’s idea of power he said that “Power relations are everywhere you can find them between husband to wife, wife to husband, wife to child etc. but the most important difference is he said when there is a force than there is a resistance” (I didn’t mention panopticon but it you can look at that concept) He never came up with solutions to the problems. What he did was just pointing out situations that were dire for him and coining new terms. (I am talking about his discourse, in his real life he fought for the terrible conditions of prisons in France) I’ll tell Lyotard briefly he combined Freud’s and Marx’s ideas and found missing spots criticised those thinkers. He was against political views because he thought that reality is based on singular events and there would be no rational one idea that can explain that thought. He was against political thoughts because politics is generally thought to be constructed on accurate representations of reality.
this sacrificing the (recently) stronger for weaker is happening in a massive way with european immigration
I have commented on that above.
Identity politics is intrinsically racism, sexism, ageism any many other isms. So it isn't the extreme right that has a monopoly on racism.
Does anyone understand that stating that there are no absolute truths is not at all what Hicks is saying? He's conflating a viewpoint with an action to a terminal point. This is so easy to point out that I'm not sure why anyone hasn't yet....
Great segment. Who s the interviewer?
Mark Michael Lewis.
is the guy on the left a computer?
This is all Hegel's fault
Excellent speech by Hicks, but why do you... whoever occupies the left half of the image, think it's helping to see your silent face with your earphone cables hanging down? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it just doesn't help. Kinda creepy.
Right? Right? Right?
so whats stage 4?
I don't want to know
MyLifeForAuir87 - We all become mindless zombies, worker drones, we all wear diapers, have a soother in our mouth, we all become comfortably numb.
Near the start of the video, the speaker more or less assumes that postmodernism is informed by Marxism. I think this is roughly a case of begging the question. Perhaps his arguments follow, but there is no apparent basis for the assumption.
This is great. So we’re in 3rd wave Postmodernism fo to speak.
Our curriculum doesn’t really matter? What your afraid of is something else?
The main problem with philosophers is that they realise that they don't have a proper job and live in an academic bubble.
Both Hicks and Peterson like to watch themselves talk. And hear themselves talk. And both enjoy their nice hair, relatively substantial stature, well-aged, rugged good looks, and throngs of swooning young men and women. I think they both may be homosexuals. Nice vid thx.
And morons apparently waste everyone 's time because they love to re-read the horseshit they type, apparently.
Politics will to power.
If you negate truth, what is your goal the next day!
Rorty was not a postmodernist. He was a neo-pragmatist who engaged with the works of postmodern writers. He rejected the cynicism of Foucault and co.
"Sitting down and having a conversation on what the truth is" sounds pretty pragmatic to me. Rorty may not have believed in "absolute and eternal" truths, but he was not an epistemic nihilist.
"Those who have privilege, they don't have equal rights anymore." Sounds like an oxymoron. Isn't privilege basically an unearned right? (BTW, I don't think anyones voice should be silenced, liberal or conservative).
Are they demonizing the act of acknowledging ones own privileges? Why not check your own privileges, and conclude you have not earned them (for better of worse)?
Right?