“The Strangest Classroom I was ever in" with James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2020
- If you like what I do consider supporting me at colemanhughes.org/
If you like what you hear, please subscribe and share bit.ly/CwCsubscribe
My latest episode features James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian. James is a mathematician, writer, and founder of New Discourses. He is the author of a new book called ‘Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity’. Peter is a philosopher, a professor at Portland State University, and the author of ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ and ‘How to Have Impossible Conversations’.
During this episode, we talk about critical theory, postmodernism and how these conspired to build the foundation of social justice ideology as we know it today. We talk about the ways in which social justice has departed from its parent ideologies, and much more.
FOLLOW COLEMAN
UA-cam - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Website -colemanhughes.org
FOLLOW JAMES
Twitter - / conceptualjames
Website - newdiscourses.com/
FOLLOW PETER
Twitter - / peterboghossian
BOOKS BY PETER & JAMES
A Manual for Creating Atheists - amzn.to/3614DU5
How to Have Impossible Conversations Co-authored by James Lindsay - amzn.to/2RRGUxB
Cynical Theories - Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay - amzn.to/3z2Y3II
#Wokeness #Postmodernism #CriticalRaceTheory
![Racial Wealth Gap I Bret Weinstein [Mini Clip]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MS-0szxW5EQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Post-modernism is why I dropped out of artschool...
Decades later I find myself at a woman's shelter for help getting out of a unhealthy relationship. They declared the multi stalled bathrooms unisex one day. Why? Because a young male who just got his liberal arts degree decided he was a girl and needed to crash the organizations policies.
It was devastating. There was even a woman there who had been raped in a bathroom.
Ideas turn into public policies.
I wrote these two poems in reply to the postmodern claims herein discussed.
Truth
I truly believed what I thought was True,
Which means that I thought what I thought.
Then a thinker informed me that Truth isn't True,
truth is merely a viewpoint you've got.
If its True that my truth isn't tied to the Truth,
then all thought is a waste of my time,
but I think as we think we are more like a sleuth,
finding out if our truth and Truth rhyme.
Now, that thinker who said that my truth wasn't True,
was speaking as if he spoke Truth,
which means that he didn't quite think these things through:
There's no Truth to his truth there's no Truth.
For the statement that nothing is True can't be True;
if it was True, it wouldn't be so.
When a Thinker like this shares their wisdom with you,
say, "How True!"
then just smile and go.
And, concerning dogma, which everyone has, but only some know they have, this fragment:
Credo
Some say, rightly,
that the rigidity of religious dogma
is often used to oppress,
and can support,
when misused,
a portion of the philosophy
of a tyrant.
The only option, however,
is the dogmatism
of having no dogmas,
which can be used to support,
without being misused,
the entire philosophy
of a tyrant.
I’m terrible at self-promotion, but if interested, my book is available at Amazon. It is called Loaves and Fishes.
"remove the ability to make epistemological judgments and judgments on morality".
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Postmodernism doesn't prevent people from making moral or epistemological judgments, but it does encourage people to avoid making absolute judgements. So instead of saying : Team A is lacking, I would say " I find Team A lacking for these reasons and by this criteria.
The idea of affirming a universal or objective morality that isn't acknowledged or experienced universally, and expecting this to lead to better results, is irrational, not postmodernism.
Great poems, thanks for sharing
ronny wijngaarde You just took your absolutist dogma one step downward and hid it from yourself. “To claim Team A is lacking for this reason or this criteria” is just to say, “these criteria and these reasons demonstrate that Team A is wrong.” And that wrong is just as dogmatic and absolute as any other claim about justice. It also points to justice having an absolute quality of “confirming to reason”.
All statements are dogmatic. Even “Huh?” is a dogmatic claim that we are confused about something.
@@jamessgian7691
Woah. No. I recommend you to study the conventional definitions of the word dogma.
A dogma is generally seen as a statement or belief that is not to be held under scrutiny.
This is the definition that I aplly:
dogma
 dog·ma
Use dogma in a sentence
noun
Dogma is defined as principles or rules that cannot be questioned, or articles of faith in different religions.
An example of dogma is the Ten Commandments in the Christian
This every statement is a dogma idea you have, I hope you reconsider it.
@@jamessgian7691
To explain further:
A dogma is unsubstantiated and can't be criticized, often with an appeal to authority.
"X is good/bad because God / the Bible/ my community says so, period."
"People like Billy are bad because daddy said so, period."
A conventional belief can, be criticized or doubted. Unlike a dogma. So when a person says
" you have to do x because that is honorable according to tradition, end of story"', that is a dogma.
In communities and groups dogmas are deemed as conventional beliefs, but not all conventional beliefs are dogmas.
I just finished reading 1984 for the first time. Yes, I'm an adult and a former woke-delusionist up until the last few months. I had a very repressive tertiary education which discouraged critical thinking and questioning so I got most of my information online. Thus, the language I knew of questioning systems, understanding race and gender, socioeconomic issues, etc were highly influenced by the online social justice movement. I'd say my vocabulary became sort of an unintended Newspeak which mostly originated from the postmodernist approach in academia.
The more I listen to content by people like the gentlemen in this video, the more I learn nuanced words and concepts. I can challenge my understanding and improve by listening patiently instead of reacting.
The critique about using rationality to undermine the rationality sent a chill down my spine. Isn't that blackwhite from the book?
"Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a party member, it means loyal willingness to say that black is white when the Party discipline demands this."
I apologise for digressing but I can't help seeing the parallels. Isn't doublethink at the center of all this chaos? I'm sure many proponents of postmodernism are aware of contradicting views... it's a wonderful concept for the arts, post modernist art is fascinating but outside the subjective realm, we can't really use it for actual policies in the real world, can we?
True freedom is chaos. Freedom from objective truth leaves no foundation for discourse to stand on and that space, which is supposed to be free of "objective truth" becomes a poor environment for questioning and learning? Instead of becoming freer, we risk conforming to everything and nothing at once.
Thanks for sharing that. It's so encouraging to hear that people come out of the delusion. How did it happen in your case?
Double think, which might also be described as cognitive dissonance is indeed at the heart of a lot of this. Rather than respond to the dissonance within and change the way they look at the world when they find that they are believing two things at the same time which are contradictory, people have been taught to seek an external reason for this which is always some kind of oppressive power structure... its really fucking boring and all of these theorists are so shallow and derivative that I cant even entertain it anymore.
How James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian waded through so much shit is astounding to me, but respect them for doing it.
Hanni Ricardifilius Whaaat? That makes no sense-You mean the anti-Trump bullies trying to shove “wokeism” down our throats with protests and riots until everyone bows down to the new order-AKA big brother!
Hanni Ricardifilius Errr no
English Guy lolz bro I have to agree. I recently listened to a woke podcast to try get a sense of what ideas they’re discussing. Because I’m familiar with Eric Weinstein’s ideas, I listened to a 4 hour critique of him on the I Don’t Speak German podcast. In 4 hours, there was barely an attempt to engage with any of Weinstein’s arguments or ideas. The entire podcast was a superficial analysis of instances where Weinstein either said something offensive, or about people that Weinstein is associated with that said something offensive. Since I promised myself I would give it a fair shake, I listened to every minute of it. It was exhausting. Lindsay et al really are troopers.
Pretty much my same experience as a student in 2014. I’d returned late in life as a Sociology major at a California State University. Political Science was not available on line; I chose Sociology. Students did not argue points. The time I raised an objection to whiteness in a migrations class, the professor actually called me at my work wanting to know what the hell my problem was. I told him it was him, and this racist theory. I ended up rewriting my paper to fit his ideology, or get a low grade and tank my GPA. Not my best moment.
That sucks. I can't tell what I would've done in that situation, both options are bad. I studied Mathematics in an attempt "to learn how to think" from first principle. Little did I know just how relevant that would turn out to be.
Please link to the original episode with these excerpts
I can never quite articulate what postmodernism adds to skepticism
I unironically like this and it’s in my head constantly
Yes it's a very good point. It's like like sawing off the branch they are sitting on.Those who insist that thinking cannot reach any objective truth often fail to make the connection that they have arrived at this conclusion by thinking, and so by their own logic, their conclusion itself would not be objectively true. And if they do consciously make that connection, then they fail to truly understand the implications of it. It points to the fact that there is a bigger more central issue at hand, and that we have not yet zeroed in on it and identified the central problem. We're not asking the right questions and we are sort of trapped in this merry-go-round of thought. The main issue is the nature of thinking itself and its relationship to the world. We think and use thoughts to 'figure out' the world but we really are not clear on what exactly thoughts are or what their relationship is to the things we are supposedly thinking 'about'. And what exactly is the activity that is producing them, where do they 'come from', etc.? The issue is epistemological and needs to be addressed directly, on its own ground first, without reference to physiology, biology, etc. - what does it really mean to 'know' something? What is it exactly that is taking place when we 'know'? This is an issue that leads us directly into the major questions of who and what we are and what is our relationship to the world. Essentially, we do not 'create' the content of our thoughts, but rather we receive ideas like radio receivers tuned in to a station. The content of our thoughts and ideas must first be there in order for us to become aware of it, to perceive it. Ideas do not really belong to us and it is due to an illusion that we think they do. This is obviously a complete paradigm shift from the current prevailing worldview.
Ah Coleman, we’re somewhat kindred spirits, you and me. I did something very similar with similar results but I was in bible study and around five years old.
Wow. First? Holy cow. Nope. By just a few seconds. Darn it. Great work though, Coleman! These guys are doing important work, and so are you!
...the goal is to remove the ability to make judgments... that is terrifying indeed.
I've just started reading "Cynical Theories". Highly recommended.
So frustrating that Dr. Boghossian is being censored and isn't even allowed to talk about topics that actually require critical thinking when he is teaching a critical thinking class. It's so ridiculous of the university.
The idea of critical thinking is what's wrong. It needs to be separated from the idea of problem solving.
Being critical isn't a good thing, it leads to complaining and further down stream, depression. It is a negative way of being. Problem solving is the opposite, it is the most positive way to be.
@@scottttym That seems pretty silly... we are negating beings, like all conscious beings. Is this food? Nope. Try getting along without denials.
Commenting for the algorithm +1 for james and peter
The discussion I wish we were having globally in the universities. Never give up!
Indeed, never give up.
James and Peter 1....Post-modernism 0. Great content once again. The big question though, when are you talking to Thomas Sowell!?
I wish I knew all that I know now when I used to have a class on constructivism at university
Thank you Mr. Holmes!
Foucault isn’t even the worst culprit. Try being in the class of a professor who is a fan of Lacan. Talk about the emperor’s new clothes.
Judith Butler, anyone? ;)
Dang.
Based on the title, I was hoping for a description of the class, not a discussion about philosophy schools. ☹️
Why it was a “dead class” ¿
He said it was dead because there was no discussion, no one was asking questions.
Because no one questioned the teacher therefore dead - teaching students what to think and not how to think - dead brains just repeating slogans
I think you can hold an objective truth, and then also immanently critique it. You can hold both at once: postmodernism and Enlightenment
No, you really can’t. In fact it’s hard to even think of two ways of thinking that are any more antithetical to one another than postmodernism is to enlightenment thinking. They are the absolute negations of one another.
@@therainman7777 Sylvia Wynter does a pretty good job of relativizing the Enlightenment, making it genre-specific, such that it isn't the only representation of reality, while also honoring its place *as* a genre of human existence. I think you can hold that gravity exists for instance, on the one hand (that we've written about it has let rockets fly), and be critical of it's monopoly on reality as such. Pan-Africanism is good at this.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems
Exactly what I was thinking of as well, haha
If nothing is objectively true. then how can you teach it. LOL
If nothing is objectively true, you can decide that whatever you say is "your truth" in your "lived experience", therefore it's correct, unfalsifiable (as it's based in subjective experience only), and anyone who doesn't believe you just isn't willing to accept your "other way of knowing". Does it make any actual sense? No. But this is the method these critical theories use to get around this problem. And it's insane.
@@faded1to3black if that is not objectively true than your lived experience is not true so therefore its false. lol
It's clsd teaching BS
*called
@@patrickerwin7386 yes, I know. It's self defeating gibberish, and self contradicting. But as with postmodern thinking, it doesn't have to make sense. It's actually meant to be that way. It's considered a feature, not a bug. And it's utterly ridiculous.
I think the postmodern thesis "there is no objective truth" is not contradictory with itself, insofar it addresses the concept of metaphysical objectivity rather than local objectivity. Sure, we can have objective knowledge about science, fact, etc. But an overall narrative that infuses life and existence with a definite meaning and truth, is rejected by postmodernism.
To add to the point of the supposed tension between postmodernism and rationality: postmodernism doesn't reject rationality, but rather purports to fulfill the rational project by acknowledging that not everything can be interpreted in a rational sense without losing some meaning. Assuming that everything that everything fits in a rational model is an irrational presupposition, so paradoxally, by letting go of this presumption of rationality, postmodernism is more rational
Ehh one of the tropes that comes up time and time again in many postmodernist writings is (1) utterly unqualified attacks on the notion of truth as such and (2) a 'debunking' attitude towards science as constituted by power games, it being just a cloak for nefarious motivations, and in no way privileged over other ways of knowing. Heck, postmodern writings tend to be so vague that you can always pretend there could be some qualification hidden somewhere, irrefutable given the fact that there is hardly any strict argumentation going on anyway. If you don't state clearly what you mean, you can always brush off counterarguments with "you've misunderstood it". At some point, people just don't buy that any more.
@@rolandxb3581 Sure, the attack on a uniform metaphysical truth is common in postmodernism, but how is it not a valid attack? These insights are just so widespread at this point that everyone basically accepts the postmodern theses in western societies. Does social media make it not obvious that truth is always connected to power games, for example. As for your reproach against the unintelligibility of postmodernism, I agree that it can be obfuscating. But do note that most of it is translated from French, the linguistic field of which had a specific revolt that led to a new style of writing. So the language makes sense in its own timeframe. It's not an excuse for other countries to adopt this style though
It’s called the epistemic fallacy!
I need an argument for the rights trans people that is based in objective science and rejects post modernism. I need one real bad. The gender critical stuff is dominating that conversation because of some convenient superficial coincidences. People like me get thrown under the bus by deconstructionist theories that claim to speak for me.
Why are rights a matter of science? Isn't this a matter of societal definition(s) of justice, morality and values? How and why would you relate rights to objective science?
If you're being thrown deconstructionist theories, you could respond with Kant's Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
This completely side-steps racism, sexism and any *ism, by simply saying do that which you'd have done to yourself, and leave out all the the rest.
If that doesn't achieve good effect on target, it's not your weaponry that's lacking.
See classical liberalism
But it seems that critical theorist do use reason in making their case for extreme skeptisism. They can not escape it.
Furthermore, what is the point of their hyper critical emphasis on racial injustice if there are no objective truths? Race itself would be an unknowable, as would any standard employed to judge injustice.
I must really be behind the curve on this thing because it seems like complete nonsense.
Tax cuts can pay for themselves if the economy booms enough. Under Trump the economy hit an all time high. What kind of libertarian is she? She blames Trump on failing to fully deliver but she misses the point he at least delivered partially on most of his promises. What does she think that no one would oppose her if she was president?
We were running a trillion dollar deficit with nearly full employment. Obviously the tax cuts did not pay for themselves. There's little hope they ever will. That's the reality. Yours might as well be a postmodern view of economics.
@@donjindra Lol, i said they could if the economy booms. Of course they can't now, democrats are killing the economy with lockdown and are spending their way into a bankruptcy.
@@regislafrance3667 The trillion dollar deficit was happening before the Covid lock down. This was when the economy was supposedly booming. Well, it wasn't paying the bills. That's just a fact. Look it up.
@@donjindra Deficit cause by a democratic congress overspending. Too busy on a witch hunt to actually balance books. The facts are that the average family had 4000 more in their pockets to do with as they see fit instead of being wasted on poorly managed programs
@@regislafrance3667 That's self-serving nonsense. Try to be honest. Trump signs all spending bills. The Senate also approves. These shortfalls are due to Republican fiscal irresponsibility. They keep taxes too low to pay the bills. And Republicans spend every bit as much as Democrats.
"remove the ability to make epistemological judgments and judgments on morality".
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Post modernism doesn't prevent people from making moral or epistemological judgments, but it does encourage people to avoid making absolute judgements. So instead of saying : Team A is lacking, I would say " I find Team A lacking for these reasons and by this criteria.
The idea of affirming a universal or objective morality that isn't acknowledged ot experienced universally, and expecting this to lead to better results, is irrational, not postmodernism.
@@nathanielknight1838
Hmm no. See that would be unconditional validation. That's an entirely different thing.
Postmodernism does not mean or equate unconditional validation.
@@nathanielknight1838
There is such a thing as opposing interests and flawed logic; humans can be logical but they are not robots or vulcans. Even their values can conflict, and then they prioritize wether we would validate this or not.
...And this point of view doesn't mean or imply that you or a postmodernist, are likely to allow any act or desire, I don't understand why you veer towards that irrational conclusion.
"Post modernism doesn't prevent people from making moral or epistemological judgments, but it does encourage people to avoid making absolute judgements."
So why should I accept your judgment?
Postmodernism relies on "systems" and "power structures" that it posits as articles of faith. All postmodern morality relates to how to deal with these concepts. Postmodernism not only does not reject absolutes, it demands absolutes in order to function.
Why would you spend money on a gender studies class? The ideas are not heavy- they are so dismal that nihilism looks amusing.
In this video, what started as an anecdote regarding gender studies, ends with poorly or unsubstantiated discrediting of postmodernism.
It's much like radical atheists bashing on all forms and aspects of christianity.
@@nathanielknight1838
Yeah. You can assure me of whatever you'd like to, and I can assure you of the contrary. A (particular) brand of postmodernism could indeed be self defeating.
You implied the claim that postmodernism means validating and condoning any action. Up untill now, you haven't substantiated that claim.
I regard myself as a postmodernist, in that I agree with many postmodernist views when it comes to morality.
Would you discuss with me how and why you believe my views to be self defeating?
Well enlighten us then
@@sbeerman1919
Pointing out an unsubstantiated claim, is not a matter of enlightenment.
What do you actually mean by enlighten? What is enlightenment to you? Are you asking a particular question?
Please elaborate.
@@nathanielknight1838
Well, in a way thats true, in a way that isn't; by conventional american or western criteria, or personal criteria, an act can be deemed immoral.
Yet saying that something is, immoral, on its own doesn't mean much. The relevant questions are, immoral to who and why?
The point is that, at times we will have to promote or enforce the values we cherish. It is not simply a matter of sternly affirming our moral frame, especially when we're not in a position of particular authority, like with children, that often doesn't lead to more desirable outcomes.
So this means we have to motivate communities and individuals. We have to try to convert them towards our definitions of our values in cases that we can't or won't apply pressure or force. This, is I believe an ongoing fight yet also a meaningful struggle, there is no conclusive end to it. We will keep on practising and refining this process as generations come into the world, we engage with others, and our desires or needs change or remain similar.
What I do take issue with, as a person, postmodernist or not, is the idea of determining morality, opposed to just acting from a logically substantiated sincere moral judgement.
Determining morality is a flawed concept; people may be convinced by our judgement but we do not simply determine morality, we have our judgement for our reasons, in relation to personal experiences.
Speaking for myself, I don't aim or presume to determine a fixed universal morality; I aim to promote or enforce my principles, by my principles, with respect to relatable, sensible desires of others.
@@ronnywijngaarde7555 I just meant tell us your ideas about postmodernism then
Coleman, STOP staring off into space endlessly as you’re talking, look into the Camera PLEASE.
Chill out, man.
That's probably how he thinks. Some people cock they'd head on one side. Others close their eyes. :D
*their
How rude!
@@phwbooth INDEED!!!