Stephen Hicks: The Pillars of Modernist and Post-Modernist Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2018
- Dear reviewer of my channel, please read: permalink.ph...
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. In 2004 he wrote "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault"
In this clip, he talks about pre-modernist, modernist and post-modernist philosophy and their differences. Full clip, quoted under fair use: • Stephen Hicks - Explai...
--------------------
This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. The topics cover the problems of leftist ideology and the consequences for society. The aim is to move free speech advocates forward and fight against the culture of SJWs.
If you like the content, subscribe to the channel!
With this channel, I try to extract central points of presentations into short clips. The focus is on the core ideas of classical liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism and the problems of leftist ideology, including feminism, social justice, post-modernism, socialism and Marxism. If you like the content, subscribe!
I would not say that the right has no problems. I also would not say Platonism has no problems. But neither is the focus of this channel, simply because there has to be some area of specialization.
However, I try to have viewpoint diversity as in the following: you find classical liberal, libertarian and conservative viewpoints and you find critiques of them between each other. That is already a broad spectrum.
But if you are looking e.g. for a critique of conservativism from a Marxist perspective then you have to find another channel. Or if you want pro 3rd-wave feminist views, you won't find that here, but you can just watch mainstream media anyway, so I do not see the problem. I hope you are not watching only this channel, you find all the viewpoint diversity you need on youtube.
Finally! Finally you've uploaded a video regarding modernism and postmodernism and the speaker in the video is actually a philosopher.
Did you notice that immediately the field of metaphysics is not only mentioned, but placed as a central topic necessary to the discussion?
I'm sorry, but it's been intellectual malfeasance on this channel's part the way the subject has been treated, addressed almost entirely by lay people with socio-political ideologies and little (if any) actual education in the relevant field.
Glad to see a change of approach. Bravo.
Actually, I had Stephen Hicks already on a few times. Consider this video where he went through 3 generations of postmodernists: ua-cam.com/video/1cuxEmy_Ipo/v-deo.html
My guess is that if a postmodernist got his pelvis crushed in a car accident he would prefer to go to a doctor rather than a poet.
Harrison Bergeron Relatively speaking.
or maybe a doctor with poetic, dramatic flourishes. You know. One who on seeing your blood pooling on the floor thinks it's crimson rather than red and starts thinking about themes.
Harrison Bergeron
And germ theory is meaningless. It was just a way for people, who we call doctors, to get power and money for vaccines because disease is a social construct. We should definitely go back to the practice of examining cadavers then delivering babies, don't mind the increase rate of mothers dieing during child birth ... that is just a social construct.
Thank you so much for linking our video!
We love what your channel is all about, and we hope to provide more content very soon with our upcoming lectures!
It is such a privilege to have access to content like that at any time, anywhere, and for free. Brought to us by objective science and physics, embodied in UA-cam.
Excellent video that cuts to the heart of the Postmodernist problem
I think the nature of reality, life and existence ebbs and flows within all 3 modernist philosophies. There are facets of truth within each one. Some empirical, some rational or subjective and some spiritual and or metaphysical. Everything has meaning. Just because the meaning may be beyond human understanding or intelligence does not mean such and such is without meaning.
I feel that postmodernism is the pursuit of objective truth. I also feel that anyone who disagrees with me is doing so with the desire to have power. ;)
You might be joking but this illogical nonsense is often used as a dumb strawman.
excellent video !!! thank you so much
Post-modernist: "There is no truth!"
Me: "Is that true?"
If you are not the smartest or best in the way you really want, then it is great to say that all is the same or just as true/untrue.
Very clear explanation of a somewhat cloudy subject.
Basically, a postmodernist is saying, "I don't believe in anything!"
If only they realized that it is literally impossible to not believe in anything. If one believed in nothing, one would know everything.
That's really not what it is. Post modernism is at its core a very intense scepticism towards the grand meta narratives introduced by modernism. It was a reaction caused by the failures of modernism (that of the certainty of human progress, technology improving lives, etc.).
Post modernists are not all moral relativists and those that critics of post modernists accuse of having these positions (Derrida is often pointed to) do not actually say that every belief or set of values are equal to any other.
great lecture. thank you 🙏
Is there a complete video of this lecture somewhere? These excerpts keep cutting out at interesting junctures... :)
Edit: never mind, found it... I neglected to open the info box where you posted the link...
brilliant
Given that Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, Spinoza, and Kant are all important modern thinkers, I’m not sure it’s right to say that the moderns think the world is primarily naturalistic. For all of them, the world of the mind is at least as central as the physical world. (Unless by “natural” we mean operating by natural laws instead of direct divine will, in which case the premodern would also be on board.)
Also, considering premodern like Augustine, Ockham, Anselm, and Aquinas, it’s a little misleading (though not entirely wrong) so say they give special importance to divine revelation above reason.
Nice
Unknown versus Nonexist
Ponder on those two
Gin,
Mr. Hicks has quite the speech tick, right? Right? Right? Ok? Right?
I heard him say "right" like 5 times while I was reading your post about him saying "right"...
Try Camille Paglia, okay?
Mike Cook -- That's not a "speech tick,"...it would be "tic." Further, a tic is not normally a needlessly repeated word (palilalia), but typically a vocal sound or physical movement. "Filler words" are what you are referring to. Not that fine details are your forte.
But please post your own video so we can compare. Don't let the fact you have no unique ideas or any substance slow you down, Cookie. Consider it a perverse benefit of the age we live that since the typical colleague of yours is an imbecile that, even in the midst of total failure, you are unlikely to stand out much.
ConservativeAnthem lol, you sound pretty angry, brony! Under-employed with your humanities undergrad degree so you scold internet comments? My comment was made light-heartedly, yours reveals you to be a self-important unhappy boor.Thanks for making my day! Lol!
It's tiresome liberal, illiterate internet bozos draw meaning from their paltry existences by cheap-shotting conservatives doing important work. The comment made your day? That's the mainstay of trolls, isn't it?!!. You are proof of the problems he addresses, armchair Cyclops. Thanks for the confirmation -- Cookie, the illiterate bore.
I think this should be re-titled 'The Pillows of Modernist and Post-Modernish Philosophy' - let us deny all responsibility, for that is the nice, the nice is the good, the good is what is good for me
"It is meaningless to speak in the name of -- or against -- Reason, Truth, or Knowledge" ... don't disagree with this statement because there is no inherent meaning in the universe, but there is inherent Truth in the universe otherwise multiple people would not be able to agree on the existence of certain things we observe.
Good content and lecturer, but anyone else notice his tenancy to say, "ah right?" Or "right?" underneath his breath?! Once you notice it, it's hard to not notice it 😅
Right?
Here we go again with the age old problem of the modernist defining post-modernism in modern terms, just like the Newtonian trying to define Einsteinian physics in terms of Newtonian physics. It doesn't work out, plain and simple, as it is highly subject to misanalysing post-modernism or Einsteinian physics. The fundamental issue is all about understanding their 'differing knowledge gesturing exercise' before even beginning to conceptualise any meaningful difference between them. It becomes obvious that such a difference can only appropriately be construed from the post-modernist or Einsteinian physics perspective as of a deeper insight.
Hicks, modernists, postmodernists and others conflate truth and fact. If they didn't do that, then philosophy wouldn't be nearly as contentious as they make it.
This guy has an impoverished view of art: something that 'pushes our emotional buttons,' and that can't contain 'truth.'
Read Rand's "What Art Is" then Tolstoy's "What is Art?" It can broaden your horizons and perspective...possibly discover there is too much "art" of which major portions are not...art. That the "production" of art is juxtaposed to the "creation" of art and originally uncompensated utility evolving to where we are now. There is/was never a need for an art "critic" or "critique"...they exist simply to encourage contemplation/deliberation and at one point became "experts" in the field to perpetuate their assumed/presumed authority and incidentally their manufactured usefulness and market ($$) worth. Useless and irrelevant...when objective "truth" is applied. Defund the NEA!
Hm, I'm not sure how what you're saying has anything to do with what I said - can you clarify? I didn't mean to make any claims regarding the need for critics or the value of the NEA.
Agree. Something like poetry can serve to develop intuitions about things, clarify language and concepts, etc. Many scientists have been artists - certainly in biology. Close observation of things was part of painting. This used to be far more common of course. And music of course is mathematical, and related to biology. Also, the postmoderns probably generally referred to poiesis when referring to "poetry" - bringing something into being, a creative thinking... They were influenced by Heidegger, who used that concept. Again, I relate it to intuitions about the nature of things.
Also, nonlinguistic arts can affect the mind and nervous system differently, helping balance and giving breaks from language which can lead to new perceptions.
Robert J Wells--Good points!
"Knowledge is meaningless"?!? Isn't that an oxymoron? As knowledge is a network of meaning. A you can't have a network of meaning with no meanings. It's like trying to define cakes out of existence because you argue batter doesn't exist... Maybe a category error as well.
Saying "we have to fight against the political horrors of out time" and then working day and night to implant communism. Makes sense...
You can feel Hick's contempt for postmodernism. He's not the best steel man for postmodernism.
Postmodernism is exactly like a religion without God. Give up on knowing anything and just feel what I tell you is good.
oy vey
Nonsense. 😂
budget Jordan Peterson, but just as good, a little less charismatic
Both conflating & generalizing silliness.
What if poets trying to pretend they're physicists?
This is a channel about the acquaintance of learning and questioning, while within this world, Seeing I'm within the realm of teaching. My Ideology is grounded within truth not politics. Knowing this i do enjoy listening and learning, history is so more fun. So Postmodernism hasn't got any truth or facts so i will never subscribe to any ideology that can't gives facts, except ruling with "fear and power of the Dictator". This all boils down to socialism/marxism and communism, and it only shows death and destruction within history, and in some case's "GENOCIDE", this i would never Subscribe to........ And i do enjoy listening and learning....
wrong.
Reason that is base on logically observable and verifiable contruction is the absence of any personal rationalization. Rational reason is usually a subsjective reason which religion is contructed from deducted reality.
Obviously, this is just subjective pillars of supposed modernist education program. Thats its doesnt give you any answers to your question because it just take you round and round in circles.
People should read the works of great thinkers of the past.
Bukowsky is more relevant person to be an example of modern thinkers. You will go further with him that this crap : ) sorry but its true.
Just look in your old dictionary the meaning of rational and logic? Then you will understand why i said it.
alt-right😂😂
The core of postmodernism is a nihilistic form of chronic nonjudgementalism
In fact, it's just an endless spiral of relativism.
They're actually horribly uninformed on world history. One who does not understand world history couldn't possibly be known as "well read."
Oh that's patently false. Because their metaphysics is quite flawed doesn't mean they're uninformed regarding world history. Quite the contrary, thinkers within PM quite often have a world class knowledge base regarding history. What they do with that information is problematic, but anyone saying postmodernists are horribly uninformed regarding world history is, no disrespect intended, quite ignorant.
Expat Photographer Well educated and polite. How are you today? I personally heard they weren't well read in world history from Camillia Paglia. She was talking with another feminists about this. I think she said they were uninformed on world history before the colonial timeframe. The ancient history where the whole world is at war with each other. That's also why they dislike only western civilization. Because their history starts mostly during the colonial timeframe. I admit she's been known to be wrong before.
Howdy. Granted we're speaking in broad strokes here, but I could see such a pattern. Certainly their focus would be onward from the colonial period. With no grand historical narratives to put forth, antiquity looses a lot of importance. I should have been precise earlier, that was my fault, sorry.
Expat Photographer Wow that's a bold statement. You don't think classic antiquity is important to know about extensively?
If you're a PM, no, extensive knowledge of antiquity is not particularly important. They're going to, yet again very broadly speaking, think most of what was recorded regarding antiquity is incorrect and about power politics.