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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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..
As the group Bright Eyes noted in their song "We are Nowhere and It's Now": "And if you swear that there's no truth and who cares How come you say it like you are right?"
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.
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?
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 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).
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?
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.
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!
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).
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."
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?
*ABSOLUTE TRUTH:* *GOD SAID YOU ARE A GUILTY SINNER! ALREADY CONDEMNED AND ON YOUR WAY TO HELL!* *_{Rom _**_1:18_**_}_* For the *wrath of God is revealed* from heaven *against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,* who hold the truth in unrighteousness; *_{Rom _**_1:19_**_}_* Because that which *may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.* *_{Rom _**_1:20_**_}_* For the invisible things of him from the *creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood* by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; *so that they are without excuse:* *_{Rom _**_1:21_**_}_* Because that, *when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,* neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. *_{Rom _**_1:22_**_}_* *Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,* *_{Rom _**_1:29_**_}_* *Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,* *_{Rom _**_1:30_**_}_* *Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,* *_{Rom _**_1:31_**_}_* *Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:* *_{Rom _**_1:32_**_}_* Who knowing the judgment of God, that *they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.* *_{Rom 2:1}_* Therefore *thou art inexcusable, O man,* whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. *_{Rom 2:2}_* But we are sure that the *judgment of God is according to truth* against them which commit such things. *_{Rom 2:3}_* And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, *that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?* *_{Rom 2:4}_* Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the *goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?* *_{Rom 2:5}_* But after *thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath* against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; *_{Rom 2:6}_* Who will *render to every man according to his deeds:* *_{Rom 2:7}_* To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: *_{Rom 2:8}_* *But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,* *_{Rom 2:9}_* *Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil,* of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; *_{Rom _**_2:10_**_}_* But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: *_{Rom _**_2:11_**_}_* For there is no respect of persons with God. *_{Rom _**_3:10_**_}_* As it is written, *There is none righteous, no, not one:* *_{Rom _**_3:11_**_}_* There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. *_{Rom _**_3:12_**_}_* They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; *there is none that doeth good, no, not one.* *_{Rom _**_3:13_**_}_* Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: *_{Rom _**_3:14_**_}_* *Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:* *_{Rom _**_3:15_**_}_* Their feet are swift to shed blood: *_{Rom _**_3:16_**_}_* Destruction and misery are in their ways: *_{Rom _**_3:17_**_}_* And the way of peace have they not known: *_{Rom _**_3:18_**_}_* There is no fear of God before their eyes. *_{Rom _**_3:19_**_}_* Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that *every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.* *_{Rom _**_3:20_**_}_* Therefore *by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified* in his sight: for *by the law is the knowledge of sin.* *YOU NEED TO REPENT TOWARD GOD, THAT MEANS YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND AGREE WITH GOD ABOUT HIS EVIL TIDINGS AGAINST YOU (ROM **1:18**-**3:20**) AND THE GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST (ROM **3:21**-25). IF YOU AGREE WITH GOD, THERE IS HOPE FOR YOU. GOD’S WILL IS THAT YOU GET SAVED FROM HIS RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT AND WRATH, WHICH IS HELL & THE LAKE OF FIRE* *_{1.Tim 2:3}_* For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; *_{1.Tim 2:4}_* *Who will have all men to be saved,* and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. *_{1.Tim 2:5}_* For there is *one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus* *HOW TO BE SAVED (JUSTIFICATION BEFORE GOD)* *_{Rom _**_3:21_**_}_* *But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested,* being witnessed by the law and the prophets; *_{Rom _**_3:22_**_}_* Even the *righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:* for there is no difference: *_{Rom _**_3:23_**_}_* *For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;* *_{Rom _**_3:24_**_}_* *Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:* *_{Rom _**_3:25_**_}_* *Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,* to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; *_{Rom _**_3:26_**_}_* *To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.* *_{Rom _**_3:27_**_}_* Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. *_{Rom _**_3:28_**_}_* *Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.* *SO WHAT MUST YOU DO TO BE SAVED (JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD)* *_{Acts _**_16:30_**_}_* And brought them out, and said, Sirs, *what must I do to be saved?* *_{Acts _**_16:31_**_}_* And they said, *Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,* and thy house. *HOW TO BELIEVE: (ABRAHAM FOR OUR EXAMPLE)* *_{Rom 4:3}_* For what saith the scripture? *Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.* *_{Rom 4:4}_* Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. *_{Rom 4:5}_* But to him that *worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.* *_{Rom _**_4:20_**_}_* He *staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith,* giving glory to God; *_{Rom _**_4:21_**_}_* And *being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.* *_{Rom _**_4:22_**_}_* And *therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.* *_{Rom _**_4:23_**_}_* Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; *_{Rom _**_4:24_**_}_* But *for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;* *_{Rom _**_4:25_**_}_* Who was *delivered for our offences,* and was *raised again for our justification.* *YOU NEED TO BELIEVE/TRUST IN JESUS AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOR AFTER YOU BELIEVED THE RIGHT GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST (ROM **3:21**-26). JESUS PAID THE PENALTY FOR YOUR SINS SO YOU MIGHT BE FORGIVEN. THAT MEANS HE TOOK THE PUNISHMENT FOR YOUR SINS ON HIMSELF AND PAID FOR ALL YOUR SINS ON THE CROSS BY SHEDDING HIS BLOOD. HE WAS MADE SIN FOR YOU, WHO KNEW NO SIN, SO YOU MIGHT BE MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM. YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE FULLY PERSUADED IN YOUR OWN MIND THAT GOD WILL KEEP HIS PROMISE BY FREELY JUSTIFYING YOU BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE/TRUST IN JESUS AND THE RIGHT GOSPEL ABOUT CHRIST. YOU FALL FROM GRACE AND GO TO HELL WHEN YOU CAST OFF YOUR FAITH OR ADD WORKS FOR YOUR JUSTIFICATION (SEE 1.COR 15:2, GAL 5:4, 1.TIM **5:12**). IF YOU CALL YOURSELF A CHRISTIAN AND DISAGREE WITH THIS MESSAGE THEN YOU BETTER PROVE YOURSELF WHETHER YOU ARE IN THE NARROW SAVING FAITH. IF IT DOESN’T MATCH WITH ROMANS CHAPTER 3 & 4, THEN YOU ARE ONE OF THE MANY IN MATTHEW **7:22**, A FALSE CONVERT, LOST AND ON YOUR WAY TO HELL!* *BUT IF YOU REJECT GOD'S GRACE OFFERED FREELY TOWARD YOU, READ YOUR FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORDS:* *_{Rev _**_14:11_**_}_* And the smoke of *their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night,* who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. *_{Rev _**_20:10_**_}_* And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and *shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.* *_{Rev _**_20:11_**_}_* And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. *_{Rev _**_20:12_**_}_* And I saw *the dead, small and great, stand before God;* and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and *the dead were judged* out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. *_{Rev _**_20:13_**_}_* And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were *judged every man according to their works.* *_{Rev _**_20:14_**_}_* And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. *_{Rev _**_20:15_**_}_* And *whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.* *_{Rev 21:8}_* But the *fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.* *YOU SEE THERE IS A TEMPORARY PLACE CALLED ''HELL'' AND THE ETERNAL PLACE CALLED ''THE LAKE OF FIRE'' WHERE ALL SINNERS WILL BE TORMENTED FOR EVER AND EVER. THE REASON WHY YOUR PUNISHMENT WILL LAST FOR EVER IS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO PAY OFF YOUR SINS SO YOU HAVE TO PAY THEM FOR EVER. IT’S REALLY THAT SIMPLE, IT’S A JUSTICE ISSUE WITH GOD. GOD IS HOLY AND JUSTLY PUNISHES SINNERS FOR EVER AND EVER IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT.*
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.
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
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! 📚
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.
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.
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".
Oof. It’s not that “nobody knows the truth” (3:20) - this would be a different philosophy and it’s a common misconception. More accurately, it’s that truth is relevant and pluralistic. But why is this guy using a lot of loaded terms that signal regressivism.
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'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 find it confusing that a loss of privilege is equated to other people protesting you or not wanting you to speak. The proposed logic seems to be my right trumps you're right to disagree and speak over me. Which it doesn't. Why not make arguments instead of doing the same victimhood song and dance. And to say it is insane as titled by the video to not be heard or given a platform and then propose minorities aren't victims is ironic considering they weren't given a platform until recent years. Affirmative action isn't a solution nor is white guilt but to deny any inequality? come on now. Unless I'm misunderstanding the skeptic undertones.
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 athiest. Instead, I believe higher value. But Did Jesus said love other human as yourself? what's the problem with giving other human more equality when you already have enough? fortunately. because of AI. mankind soon will reach abundance and more equal stage.
I remember Dr. Peterson said conscience. Well, my conscience said to be compassion. what's your conscience teach you? I think Jesus represent Collective conscience
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.
"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)?
Well. I have also tried to understand why these ideologues doing what they are doing. I know this is hard, but I actually think they might be doing a better job to call, truth subjective.. Ok this is a big statement. But I need to unwrap it, fcoz I am just entertaining thoughts... What most important is to know is that I know little about what this new form of chaos will create... I have no clue so many things. I can only try to sympathize, and try to understand it... Yes, I understand pm far left marxist are definitely going against everything what we know about science in particular and to some degree what we know in philosophy. It is really complex... I also think that it is a form of escaping impending catastrophe... Just know every moment there can be a catastrophy. We as a species keep trying to escape it forever and ever. I don't know where we end, maybe in hell. Also don't forget this left Marxist B.s. is all contrived by Superelite... You know the puppeteers. I am pretty sure this Avatar Complex and Hyperoffense taking is just a precipitating factor, to Virtual Reality and Apotheosis. Deification. So we keep escaping predecessor realities, and create new ones. Just thinking about the exponential growth of Technological application.. It seems inevitable this new era. I am sorry, but I think the Elites are doing the inevitable.
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.
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!
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.
Popularity of Jordan Peterson is because of rise of on line shaming, where someone on Internet says something offensive and others pile up against him. Justine Sacco said seemingly racist comment and Twitter users destroyed her life.
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.
of course there are no grand narrative ... of course everybody had the right to defend , protect and spread his/her own believe ... let it be like that until the end of time ! cause that was human made of , and so what ???
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.
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....
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…
