I'm so interested in postmodernism so I took a course in it a year ago. Watching this 45 minute lecture while laying in bed sipping my morning coffee and taking notes made me realize that that course was a waste of time and energy lol. Amazing lecture, very clear and well prepared. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Indeed, the man teaches with a passion that even many of his younger colleagues could be envious of. That's on top of the fact he's very good at explaining all these complicated ideas, he's clear, sticks to the point and gives many concrete examples.
Postmodernism is explained so well in this lecture that it is so clear to me that it will lead to immense pain suffering and nihilism. Looking forward to post-postmodernism
STAND-OUT QUOTES: 02:46 DURING ENLIGHTENMENT ERA: 1. There are absolute Truths 2. Objective knowledge possible 3. Use reason based on experience 4. Key to make progress is by using Truths and Reason to therefore find objective knowledge 03:22 Postmodernists reject Truths, Objectivity, reason 19:24 Postmodernists say it is mistake to say we have direct access to our own mind. 20:40 PM call it DE-CENTERING. PM say “You are not at the center of your own mind” PM say “You don’t have direct knowledge of anything” * * * * PM DANGER * * * * PM say “Limits of language determine limits of our world” PM Caution: We are not at the center of that world. * * * * * * * * 24:08 We use ready made concepts generated from society. Concepts come from language. Language comes from society. 28:40 DIFFERENCES Differences allow to identify objects Language establishes a structure Language determines limits of our world Language presents differences 30:52 Structure only. Language cannot give what what an object physically is. 32:12 No difference between fiction and Non fiction. Language gives just a system of signs. Reporting vs. telling a story. No way to get at underlying world. 33:30 No Truths are absolute. Truths are just social constructions. 33:50 Objectivism is impossible. 34:06 Rejection of reason. Postmodern given: Reason is a tool of oppression 35:00 Expose the categories and power structures 37:12 Hypocritical: They use logical argumentation to defend Postmodernism Logic is a tool of oppression Language cannot determine what something is. .
That's a very non-post-modern perspective. You don't know it's a clown. It could be a squeaky chair, it could be someone with a kazoo or an air horn, or it could be auditory hallucinations on your part. Who are you, hearing all of the clown noises?
A great thing about Bonevac. He is a dynamic lectuerer "on a roll." But he can absorb questions and comments from his attentive audience without getting "derailed."
now I really wish I had visited philosophy courses in university - especially with a teacher like you. enjoyed every second of it, keep up the good work!
Thank you for uploading these awesome lectures ! How passionately he speaks and how down-to-earth such complicated ideas are explained! I wish he was my professor.
Meant to just watch as much of this as needed for class...ended up watching the entire thing. This man is brilliant and engaging. That's a true artist...getting people to do things they weren't going to do in the first place and, after it is over, convincing them they wanted to do the thing of their own accord.
When Daniel asked the question if there was anything that could get between you and yourself, I immediately thought consciousness itself. The structure of your mind is not significantly different if consciousness is absent for whatever reason. The parts of your mind that govern language, imagination, or abstraction could be firing on all pistons, but without a conscious awareness to make contact with that activity, it's just dark. Is that not a barrier between you and yourself? Well, I guess that hinges on whether or not you can be defined as yourself in the absence of consciousness, which is surely debatable, of course.
You are the story you tell yourself about how you fit into the world and society. Fitting into the world includes coming to grips with the fact that your particular embodiment/perspective is objectively verified "for all intents and purposes". Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain and the distinction between mind and body is only in language and purpose, not in reality.
Having all the notions, concepts and background presented at the the beginning of the lecture definitely improves the explanation of postmodernism, I was interested only in this topic but I think the other videos of the channel surely are as great as this one. Thanks for sharing all this material Prof. Bonevac.
"No truths are absolute," would appear to be an absolute statement about truth. If there is no truth (about for example the way the world is), why speak about the world at all? Just celebration perhaps? Why assert and contest any statement if there is no truth to approximate? On the contrary, some descriptions of the way the world is, are more accurate and more robust than others. Thus compare the following accounts of what happened in Germany under Nazi rule: (α) ‘the country was depopulated’; (β) ‘millions of people died’; (γ) ‘millions of people were killed’; (δ)‘millions of people were massacred’. All four statements are true.But (δ) is not only the most evaluative," See The Possibility of Naturalism, 3rd edition, Bhaskar 1979 (1998) p.65.
You have provided something truly amazing with these lectures. Bravo! Helped me understand way more than the over-the-top communication of many philosophy people.
Thank you! Dr. Rick Roderick, d. 1997, & his teaching company 8 lectures, "Self Under Siege" especially the last lecture, is great on post-modern, too! I couldn't help but hear the Sophists, the Skeptics returning in these theories of structures, etc. The Platonic sky gods versus the sophist's earth giants, lol. A great lecture is Philosophy of science, Dr. Steven Goldman, Linus Pauling lecture available on RU-vid, "What Scientists Know, and How They Know it", for an enlightening romp through 2,400 years of history! Thank you again.
I understand postmodernism much better now as I watch this interactive lecture.Clear,detailed and to the point whereas my local professor gives a lil fragmented and hurried lecture so I miss out on the fundamental points❤👏👏 what i love about this lecture is that you make learning more fun and less intimidating.
I know it this post is years old, but but this kiwi artist/farmer/engineer/pensioner is years old too, you gave the most succinct/lucid explanation of postmodernism that I've heard, thank you.
Guy has his delivery down pat. He's packing two lectures into one. I had to keep pausing to google some of this stuff and get back up to speed before continuing. Gotta LOVE RU-vid.
This is the only thorough but somewhat unbiased explanation of this subject I have ever seen on the internet. Thank you so much for uploading this lecture!
A great lecture indeed: detailed, engaging and easily understandable. One thing which I would say - that too after listening people saying, if they’re postmodernist or not - that whether one believes in this philosophy or not, if one looks around, it is already there. People are psychologically postmodernists without even realising it. With all the information/information sources and versions of reality surrounding us, this philosophy is valid I believe, whether one choose to follow it or not. I still don’t think if I have the complete understanding of postmodernist philosophy, the more I read about it, the complex it gets and it has successfully dragged me into pessimism. If someone can help me get out of this pessimistic state of mind, I need your help!
He's so mobile it is impossible to lose concentration in his class, even if you had three hours of sleep the night before, you'd still be wide awake listening to what he's saying.
Watching this in 2020 and so very moved by how enjoyable and easy to understand this lecture is until I feel the urge to comment. Wish I could've been in this class! Thank you for sharing!
The theorizing of the postmodernists makes me wonder about their mental stability. They say because something is not 100% perfect then it must be thrown out. But they offer no solutions or alternatives. Although the scientific method is not infallible it has proven to produce knowledge of practical use.
Postmodernism to me seems like a great hypothesis with huge arguments going against it, but hypothesis just sounds so good that postmodern philosopher chooses to ignore those arguments and keep going as if they do not exist.
One of the causes of the philosophy of postmodernism was the dehumanisation of WWII. Thus the deconstruction of the meaning of texts 📚 is try to determine the effects of ideology (Derrida et al.) All statements in texts, thus, are caused by the nature of society.😎
None of my favorite scientists (Dawkins, Harris, Shermer, Krauss, etc.) are fans of postmodernism. They see it as being at the heart of what is wrong with both current liberal thought and religiosity. The notion that there is no objective truth, that every individual's truth is equally as valid as everyone else's, has led to some strange places. I found it interesting when I first encountered in college, but also impenetrable and inexplicable to the point of craziness. Nevertheless, I am enjoying this lecture. This professor is talented at clarifying things as best he can and holding the attention of the class.
I think the tragic decay of the Image of postmodernism underlies its inherent self-destructiveness. At its core its principles actually are very much permanently utilized even before it was outlined in the 60s and 70s. However, since even post-modernist themselves hold off the acknowledgment of any kind of progress through their critique by their own terms they sadly play to lose in a progress or just benefit oriented culture. For that reason, and i guess many others, postmodernists will only by ad hoc find any kind of agreement, which becomes evident considering any post-modern collective ever only agreed to disagree with what is currently understood as true. That means in the end, any postmodern thought is designed to implode as soon as it is understood or successfully communicated as that isnt something that should work by design. J. B. Peterson has some very fitting critique, saying you cant achieve anything or gain any motivational benefit to act live or create by undermining these concepts as tyrannical, specially since nobody really forces you to deal with society, only ourselves. (though he likes to make things big and gets a little far by demonizing pretty much the entire philosophical community after WW2)
After learning about postmodernist philosophy, I realised that I have been a postmodernist all along without knowing that there was a term for it. I was always confused as to why I think this way, have so much scepticism about everything (which may be nothing) except the fact that I am; I exist.
Great and enjoyable lecture , it surprised me how students started to collect their stuff as time was up, I would ask the professor to extend the class for more instead :)
Lucky to here on this lecture , I wasn't able to catch up properly because of covid crisis as normal classes wasn't possible.This topic was in my 3rdsem M.A course.
How could post-modernism have ever been taken seriously? Concepts don't influence reality, they're just a description. If you change the description, you're just describing something else, without changing the reality.
Just watching this video I can already see the holes in the basis of the theory. They are associating language with the concept and then critiquing language. Fundamentally the difference in our perception of things exist, regardless of if you call two things cat or human, you can still further subdivide ad infinitum until you get to generic objects (Molecules, atoms ect). Fundamentally language is a description of the differences, it takes what we see and expresses it, not the other way around.
7:00 Hagel: The myth of the given. DATA describes the “Given”. Thought and language do not relate directly. - In between us and it are concepts. In our perception, there is synthesis. We receive a complicated picture. We have visual, auditory, sensory input. 11:58 We categorize our perceptions, thoughts. Concepts unify our various perceptions - In between us and the objects are concepts 15:00 The Self - Rene Decarte “I have been deceived” Therefore I will doubt everything. Concludes: “I think, I am.” “I know my mind best” “I have access to my own mind.” Alcohol? Drugs a barrier? Mental illness? Emotions a barrier? 19:24 Postmodernists say it is mistake to say we have direct access to our own mind. 20:40 PM call it DE-CENTERING. PM say “You are not at the center of your own mind” PM say “You don’t have direct knowledge of anything” * * * * PM DANGER * * * * PM say “Limits of language determine limits of our world” PM Caution: We are not at the center of that world. * * * * * * * * 24:08 We use ready made concepts generated from society. Concepts come from language. Language comes from society.
Excellent lecture. I'm desperately trying to follow the principle of charity while learning about the history of postmodernism. I find it very difficult to do so since it seems among the principles of postmodernism to assume that nobody means what they say, even if they think they do . . . . how then are we to proceed rationally? How are we to learn without listening to the principled opposition to our ideas?
Thank you so much, I was getting nowhere near understanding postmodernism but then I suppose that's the point. Good lecture, well thought out, and excellently executed.
Ohh thank you for this, what a treat to be able to have access to such a magnificent class and wonderful professor, to be able to authentically and passionately convey this idea which in itself is ...quite inauthentic and contradictory and ...kind of just total wank. I don't think i could have manage teaching this subject, explaining it in such a faithful manner without also cloaking it in derisive cynicism. So well done i realy enjoyed it! I think the problem with this idea is exactly as was mentioned, that, as just another 'construct' it is in fact self refuting , why should we trust this instead of any other narrative? It really is very cynical, this allows the utter miss-trust and dissembling of the scientific method which under post modern judgement may not be capable of proving itself as 'authentic' but under every other test the empirical method does prove itself, to the point actually where ppl trust it with their life (medicine, construction, space exploration, food production etc) because they understand what the testable method is, so u might say in the post modern world, ok science is just an idea but in comparison to other ideas and theories of reality it still comes out 1st because its construct is more widely authentic (quite ironically) thru the prevalence of its workable manifestations, in other words we are surrounded by its results every where we go not because the results are fabricated by a ruling class but because the results cannot be fabricated, if your building dimensions are identical to those of a builder half way round the world the building will be the same. So even as a 'construct' the scientific method still becomes more believable than ideas that are dreamed up, as far as it seems merely in order to supplant it for ...really dubious reasons.
The students were waiting to take off when the lecture was coming to a close. Damn shame. How do you feel when people who seemed to be really enjoying the lecture can't even wait for you to finish before starting to pack their stuff and leave so abruptly?
Very good lecture but misses WHY the Po-Mo skepticism about objective truth, and connections between language and reality, is wrong. It is that, for example, the people who did NOT have pretty much the same concept of a tornado as any of us do were, um, blown away. The visual system is a great model for all of our concepts. It's full of assumptions and simplifications. Sometimes they're wrong. But mostly they work and that's why we have them.
sometimes I think, all these existential inquiries are such a delight, maybe a distraction, from the one dismal, haunting question. "why wasn't I loved?" in this case, philosophy is a sort of medicine that I must dose regularly to maintain my sanity.
I had the geeky prejudice against postmodernism until the Appalachian Prison Book Program sent me Literary Theory by Ryan and Rivkin. I wondered why and put it aside for years. During the COVID lockdown I read it and was stunned. Not only was postmodernism how I had thought pretty much since my first copy of the postmodern journal MAD, but Derrida's differance and deconstruction neatly plugged a hole in Lakoffs prototype category theory I had noticed and called discerption.
Chomsky (paraphrased): "Postmodernism, when it makes any sense at all, is reducible to monosyllabic truisms and lacks for any true complexity. It is the output of outmoded humanities professors envying for the esteem that comes with theory in the STEM fields and wishing that they'd also chosen a useful field of study." "Critical Theory" is not theory - more like a set of lazily built and unfalsifiable hypotheses. As a rubric, this is the sophomoric sophistry of three generations now of hack academics jerking each other off in very insular circles.
