Stephen Hicks: Why Postmodernists don’t see their own Contradictions?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- What motivates postmodernists? Why do they not see their own contradictions? How can they reconcile their epistemology with their socialist policy?
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 a book named "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault" which was e.g. recommended by Jordan Peterson for understanding postmodernism.
Full clip, licenced with permission: • Stephen Hicks on Postm...
--------------------
This channel aims at extracting central points of presentations into short clips. If you like the content, subscribe to the channel!
'Never argue with an idiot, they will reduce the conversation to their level and then beat you with experience'.
DAMN!!! Who said that? If it’s yours, it’s a beauty!
Word
@@junior.von.clairemark twain said it
I know a super lefty girl who preaches equality but will instantly disqualify this whole video because of his skin colour and gender. (White male).
Send her diamond and silk, or amazing lucas, or abl,
So she's a racist.
Imagine, for one full minute, the world with every contribution from White males removed.
There would be “bad things” removed” but they would be dwarfed by the “good things”.
Thanks to Jordan Peterson for his contribution to our understanding of this.
That's what the left is now...
What she really wants is equality of outcome and will sacrifice all other values for that one goal. Of course, that's short sighted because it will likely lead to far worse outcomes for everyone
I was talking about history with a Postmodern friend whom I thought I knew well, and considered rather intelligent. In the midst of our conversation he made two statements which were highly inconsistent. I pointed out the inconsistency as such, and he asked me:
"But, why is consistency so important?"
I was, at the time, flabbergasted, not expecting the need to explain something so fundamental.
@Timothy Somerville You are confusing a useful tool with a feeling. He didn't expect his PostModern friend to be such an indoctrinated dunce. This made him feel flabbergasted. *Consistency* is one of the tools of discernment, one of the many ways that humans have judged the sensory inputs from the world in order to survive and hopefully thrive. It's been used and conserved because it was found to be a reliable way of navigating the problems and circumstances put before us. It's been with us for so long that many have classified it as "Common Sense"... but you might argue that all this is a "Social Construct" and has no relevance. I'm glad I don't live in your version of Hell.
@The Modern Stoic You need to be some special kind of snowflake to make that postulation. They are capable of making anything into an emotion and then blaming you for how they feel.
@Timothy Somerville the basis of science is testability, and repetitivity, which leads to predictability.
@Timothy Somerville huh? Psycho babble?
@Timothy Somerville - "Consistency is an emotion" Really ? I broke down in consistency ....I was over come by consistency ....Tears of consistency rolled down my cheeks...
You have learning difficulties ...it might be a good idea to go into a desert and contemplate for a year or 2 ...
They don't believe in contradictions, especially their own.
"Contradictions are a Social Construct" ...or some similar nonsensical statement.
@@marscruz Well, these actually are a cognitive product, but the thing is that these are not all worthless because none is the "absolute truth" but in fact human cognitive products are of highly varying use for varying people.
They will project how contradictory they are onto you and declare your objections to them a social construct, it is pure grandiose selfishness. It is like the power- and communication strategy of a mentally ill trying to convince the people that have taken him into custody continuously that he is Jesus or whichever grandiose claim he likes.
@@raymundhofmann7661
SJW: "...but, but, but, I AM Jesus!"
Cop: "Yes buddy, and I'm Pontius Pilot. So be a good little Savior and put your hands behind your back."
They see everything as being contradictory, that's the problem.
None of you have ever read anything by a post-modernist but somehow you are all experts because you watched Jorden Peterson say something about Marx and post-modernism on youtube.
“Contradiction is a social construct”
That’ll be the next one! But of course, all you have to do is ask “Is it possible for contradiction to be a social construct at the same time as contradiction *not* being a social construct? If not, why not?”
Contradiction is the very fabric of toughts from what I see.
🤣🤣🤣no dear....postmodern leftist stupidity is a social construct
Social construct is a social construct
Spoken like a true socialist
I have a philosophy teacher in college who was a post modernist. It was maddening the irrational nonsense that went on in there.
So maddening that now you can't use tense consistently?
@@LeekowalskiWalker I'm not that tense. I was just had a couple of glasses of wine.
@@philochristos it was a joke about you switching tenses. "i have a" vs "who was a" when referring to things that occured toget
her in time.
There is nothing more delusional than wanting something to be true
. . except not wanting ANYTHING to be true -
So religion?
Jarin Jove I don’t understand your question. Can you rephrase it?
I find that the definitive delusion is not wanting the truth to be true. That forces you into all kinds of mental gymnastics to reject the truth and create all kinds of otherwise unbelievable scenarios to explain things.
liljenborg precisely! Romans 1:20 says all who claim to be atheists are “without excuse”, and their continuing rebellion (verse 21) causes their heart to be “darkened”. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 explains further that because “ they received not the love of the truth” that GOD “ shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie”. In a terrifying and ironic twist, their own LOGIC turns on them to their ruin. Great answer!
The historical parallels are sublime. Well said Mr. Hick. We need more historians and philosophers in this society, replacing biased journalism would be beneficial for everyone.
Some postmodernist wrote the title, but I changed it :)
Thanks Dr Hicks! Sorry if I seemed too nitpicking there. It's just that I find spelling / grammar and other sorts of errors constantly, and it gets to me sometimes.
Frankly, I think your analysis is excellent. Though I am still thinking about the ultimate conclusion regarding what motivates the Left. I see contradiction ensuing in the Left's positions from the fact that they seem to move from a modernist / Enlightenment perspective, when that suits their purposes, to a postmodernist (relativist) perspective, when that suits their purposes. The two worldviews, modernism and postmodernism, are obviously incompatible. (As someone like Steven Pinker shows.) But the Left employs those two different rhetorics at will, again depending on what they want in a given context. Their real target/s, I would argue, are Christianity, and tradition (although mainly just Western tradition). That's really what harnesses them together. That's why, too, the Left now hates the US Constitution so much. It has the status of being a tradition. That's why they want to radically modify it (add to it, or subtract from it), or even eliminate it and rewrite it altogether. Of course they will use other non-Western traditions to undermine Western and Christian traditions.
I am Dr Michael Carper, by the way, philosopher from St Louis University. I really enjoy your lectures and interviews. Thanks for all your hard work! Let me know if, during this time of lockdown, you would like to talk. I would love to. I have thought a lot about our current political and cultural situation. I have a paper, eg, that I gave at the University of Nebraska, on the logic of being a conservative vs being a liberal. It was very well received by both sides, much to my delight! It started a great conversation! I am trying to reach out to as many as I can. I love learning from others whose views have real coherence and integrity, such as yours. Take care.
I enjoyed and agree with the point of the video but I do hate how obstinately Randians insist on misunderstanding that Kant quote!
@@michaelcarper2185 I'd like to read your paper on the logic of being a conservative vs being a liberal. Where can I find it? Thanks.
Lmao!
@@michaelcarper2185 Thanks for the response. I didn't know if you would get a notification of my response to your message due to the 3 month gap, but you did. I've sent you an email and I'm looking forward to reading your paper.
P.S. I would recommend removing your email address from the previous comment now that it's served its purpose, but that's your call.
Stunned by the summary from 4:58 onwards listing the perspectives of the Sophists and its extraordinary similarity with the current perspectives of the post modernists!
Nothing new under the sun, eh?
Post-Modernism: There is no "Truth".
Me: So, no truth; no contradictions.
Post-Modernism: That's true.
You missed the part where sensing a binary choice to commit to, the postmodernist instead chooses that moment to change the subject--often interrupting loudly the very instant they sense they'll have to take a stance on anything if the conversation proceeds in that same direction, which belies any guise of innocent stupidity. They know... at some level, they know if they never claim anything as fact, they can never be wrong.
@@ladymercy5275 It's a useful intellectual diversion, but unfortunately it becomes a way of life when it is hijacked by the bad-faith actors to win power games in political spaces and political games in intellectual spaces. See the fiasco at Evergreen State, a few years ago.
Hair splitting, semantics and goal-post moving is all that it ultimately is. And the only places it can thrive are places like academia and politics, where the standards are simply lower (or so very particular as to be mainly a racket). It's dazzling to mid-wits of a certain temperament, and tiresome to everyone else.
Post-modernism is "'This sentence is false': the philosophy."
Well, it's more like they're saying that they don't believe truth is accessible to us, and that even if it was, it isn't important (and that the notion that this is not the case, that truth is what corresponds to reality and that any approximation that can be made should be made so that a goal can really be reached, is part of the prevailing power structure that facilitates oppression and is therefore suspect). To postmodern thinkers, the only "truth" that is remotely accessible is relative, and specifically relative to what postmodern convention says is important about a person, that being inalienable characteristics as power structures respond to them (dubbed "positionality"). Therefore, truth when invoked by others is regarded as a naive or malicious evasion from discussing systemic oppression, (specifically based on whether it runs counter to their theories - "Theory" for short, or not), but when invoked by fellow activists for the same cause, it is "true" in the sense that according to Theory, it is the closest to truth that we can get, and it challenges oppression.
With that in mind:
Postmodernists: we shouldn't care about "truth" when it gets in the way of fighting oppression.
Me: How do you get at oppression without considering truth?
Postmodernists: That question undermines my cause of fighting oppression (creating equity), therefore you're either a bad person or you've been brainwashed by the system I'm trying to fight, and therefore in dire need of my guidance.
Me: What if the inequity is justified?
Postmodernist: "justification" is a tool of hegemony to preserve pre-existing power-structures. Oppression can't be justified, and if you refuse to see this you need to be shut down so you can't defend the current hegemony.
Me: So we shouldn't punish any murderers or thieves whatsoever?
Postmodernist: Enough of this epistemic violence! SHUT UP AND LISTEN!
Yes, there is a perfectly sound case to be made from postmodern theory that any and all social sanction is bad and should be done away with (you can see it in definitions of equity). It is never turned upon itself because that is inconvenient and therefore "untrue" to the "lived experiences" of "oppression" that are the closest thing to truth in the paradigm. Theory can't be broken because it's so cynical, it has to not fall into any pitfalls (right?). (Of course, there's still an implicit appeal to truth in there, to it being true that truth is not important. However, there can be no contradictions in Theory, only in what Theory criticizes. Criticizing Theory for self-contradiction is using "the master's tools" to protect the "master's house", and theorists *know* that those tools must not be *relied* upon if they are to accomplish the goal of equity (this is based on one poorly argued quote-application from the 80s).
It's at this point everyone should realize that even from it's own perspective, Theory can't accomplish what it aims to do, because it disregards any and all opposition as stemming from ignorance or malice, disregards facts when inconvenient, and rejects that the reality it is trying to change (which it has psychologized entirely while training people to be psychologically unstable) corresponds to anything besides *feeling* "oppressed", meaning that the only solution is to embrace the hegemony it is fighting because when operating properly, any hegemony will make resident believers think current arrangements are fair and not to be opposed. That's on its own terms. It is only by appealing to reality that theorists can justify teaching people that they are oppressed and must fight it, that is, only by rejecting their own analysis. By teaching people that they are oppressed, Theory is in fact doing the exact thing it seeks to do away with, and there's no reason for it besides the axioms: "oppression is real. It is perpetrated by power-structures against group identities that are thus made real." (And which provide group members a positionality that gives access to truth-claims - if they don't challenge Theory, in which case they have a false consciousness.)
It is best seen as an intellectual trap for critically incompetent but caring individuals. One I'd hope was set up by accident and not intentionally.
Their mental disability involves being unable to parse logical operators other than negation and equivalency. In computer programming, we would say that their concept of syntax is incomplete, meaning there are some logical algorithms that their mind is incapable of generating, because they can't parse asymmetrical categorical information. Like, this is hilariously exemplified by Cathy Newman's infamous "so you're saying that..." because _every single time_ that Jordan Peterson asserts a claim with complexity beyond x = y, or x = -y, she completely forgets what she said three statements ago. Polarity, the capacity to know a thing by comparison to its opposite is the limit of her conscious ability.
Do you want to a guess how many individual statements are required to propose the simplest of logical arguments? Hint: it's not less than three. You can't get _syntax_ with polarity alone, which we see when the post-modernists completely fail at differentiating subjects and predicates, as if the order in which they're presented in a sentence doesn't change the meaning of the statement. For their minds, it doesn't; they are physically (I suspect neurochemically) unable to parse categorical definitions, without relying on symmetry.
*Diagram:* www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/210/07-categorical-logic-outline_files/image002.jpg
So you can break their programming with the following riddle:
_"Is a rectangle that isn't a square a rectangular square?"_
This will return their mind to the state it was in prior to the sentence they spoke, before the riddle was asked. You can substitute your own terms, if geometry isn't suitable for the conversation, so long as you pay strict attention to how the logical distributions of each term in the sentence require more than two concepts of quantification beyond existential and universal, or distributed and undistributed--same relational concept, different names for the same isomorphic definitions.
*Citation:* www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/210/07-categorical-logic-outline.htm
Another term to describe the mathematical meaning of these unique types of symmetrical, polarized limitations that the post-modernists impose upon their self is 'Bijection,' which in essence is the epitome of moral relativism, but with numbers. E.g. (X is Y.) (So you're saying that Y is X?)
So postmodernism is essentially intellectual cognitive dissonance...
Yes. Exactly.
Minus the intellectual part.
@@thenonexistinghero lmao
Right.
Yeah, when your ideology is completely discredited by logic and common sense, then you discredit logic and common sense.
TLDR: Postmodernists see their contradictions but are literally irrational (they reject the use of reason to arrive at conclusions).
Francis Schaeffer made the astonishing prediction of modernity in his book "Escape from Reason" all the way back in 1968. Though, he was an astute thinker and assessor of ideological consequences, so its not really a huge leap given what was going on in those days.
I’m on the verge of buying that book following your mention, though I see Schaefer was Christian, which is a fundamentally superstitious belief system. Is that book therefore coloured with assumptions about the supernatural?
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe Supernatural in the historical sense is that which is higher than a material essence. It is widely believed that things such as consciousness is immaterial. Do you think you are conscious? If so, Schaeffer may be able to speak to you in meaningful ways. If not, then no communication is possible with you.
@@1stGruhn how do we know consciousness is immaterial? Surely if you’re braindead (which is material), you’re not conscious
@@EmperorsNewWardrobe I would say you are conflating the information with that which is encoding it. When I speak my vocal cords move air, but you can't determine what I mean by the air movement alone. The content of information is immaterial even if it uses the material to transport the message.
@@1stGruhn where is there evidence of anything immaterial?
Yes. If they claim truth is a function of power, and words are a rhetorical weapon used in the interest of power, why wouldnt they be playing their own game?
It also perfectly explains why they keep accusing us of things so alien to our own motives - since they see the world through that game, they presuppose that we must be doing the same.
Right... they tell on themselves all the time, it's all projection of their own perversions and their horrible worldview. "Everything is racist and sexist, nobody is really normal, everything is a power struggle, everyone is just selfish and wants to dictate will to power, bla bla.." That's THEM. That's THEIR stupid thinking.
Why can't postmodernists find the contradictions in titles?
Do not agree with Professor Hicks on his view of Nietzsche and the Nazis. But I find his thoughts on Post Modernism clear, succinct and quite helpful. It’s very difficult to debate someone with Post Modern views. As they often throw out entirely Logic and Reasoning. This lecture gave me some footholds to use next time I find myself in conversation
George Orwells doublethink, believe 2 things at the same time, that contradict each other.
Marxist theory looks good on paper, unless that paper is in a history book.
Never read Marx or a single work by a post-modernist. Still an expert. Wonderful.
@@lordbunbury Cool story, bro.
Marxism doesn’t even look good on paper. It is an immoral mess. Theft and force is mandatory. How else will you redistribute property from the unwilling?
Violence and force. Any Marxist Revolution will be bathed in the blood of the innocent. When your foundation is that fundamentally evil it doesn’t look good, it looks like a system built on genocide and mass murder.
I wish it was only relegated to history books filed under, don’t do it again, but evil exists in this world.
Excellent !!!!!!!!
Clear , up to date and probing
The title is the work of UA-cam. Stephen Hicks seems to have some mastery of the language and correct grammar.
Ok, I see. Thanks.
Whenever I find an apparent contradiction in someone's view, I don't give them any benefit of the doubt and assume I understand their position better than they do. I'm so insecure that I can't risk properly understanding my opponent (what if they're right? What if I'm wrong?). So I straw man them, and don't bother meaningfully engaging with what they actually say and think. I'm just interested in reinforcing what I already think, rather than getting at the truth.
And when you have studied Kantian and Post-Kantian for decades and find a REAL contradiction, what do you do? Blanking out, so your friends and collegues won't think you've started to think independently?
If you can't see yourself and your place in historical context, you are meaningless and impotent. Know thyself.
When Postmodernists win, everyone loses.
No. You are already lost. You just can't imagine what people can do with their ability to think.
Yes Chris, it’s Gary Krishna
They destroy everything to attain representation , representation of their fragmented personalities reflecting back at them.
Your mom is a loser.
Life carries with it numerous contradictions. The difference between ideology and ideals is that those with ideals adapt and learn.
Incredibly eye opening for I have many postmodernists friends who in conversation throw logic or evidence out the window without hesitation and instead consider their feeling an obvious trump card to logic or evidence.
I used to be a democrat and hardcore socialist, till one day I was studying free societies and in less then 15 minutes everything I believed came crashing down when put against logic and reason.
I would hypothesize the reason people choose postmodernism is they get to believe they’re right, and that lovely feeling is simply more valuable than truth or logic, a sad clarity regarding the human mind.
The flat earth society of academics.
Never read a post-modernist’s work and still an expert. Wonderful.
Lord Bunbury Who are you talking about? Me? You? Hicks?
I’m working on competing another university degree (I have several). Gives me good perspective.
There was never this concentration of people who believed in flat earth that we know of. Academia on the other hand...
Walter B You missed by point. I compared Postmodernism with flat earth believers. Postmodernists never back anything they say with empirical evidence. They only test of a Postmodernist idea is if other postmodernists like them.
Very smart talk. One small complaint. The guy seems to be still stuck seeing most sexism as directed at women. While men are the ones who seem to be dying and in actual distress.
The low number of upvotes on your comment speaks volumes.
Anyone want to talk about how Johnny Depp was hospitalised while in Australia and why every single media outlet is remaining silent? That’s a measurable fact.
FYI- Johnny was beaten repeatedly. Amber admitted it and admitted Johnny never hit her... not one media outlet will cover it ... and never will. Every act of DV by a woman is covered up. And there’s a lot of it!
Nicely and articulately put.
As I thought back over the years I also recalled a time when I was omnivorous toward anything H. P. Lovecraft. This occurred sporadically during my late teens and early 20’s. And during that time I could not get enough of him. I remember re-reading the opening lines of the At the Mountains of Madness (1936) so many times. His rambling style just went on and on like an insane man trying to keep a grip on his fragile sanity. And it felt like I was reading something I had written long ago but was long forgotten. I must have read those paragraphs a quarter hundred times because I felt I had read it somewhere before. And I wondered if some of his more macabre stories may have been an influence on my dreams.
Enoch is indeed a paradox, a cheerful shortcut through logic chosen by the Almighty way back in Genesis. Some have suggested the sky is dark because our universe is confined within a huge black-hole. But we can still shine like stars BRIGHTLY within the singularity for others to paradoxically see through the absolute darkness. Enoch is spoken of again with praise from the Almighty in the Wisdom of Sirach 44:16:
Enoch pleased the Lord and was taken up, an example of repentance to all generations -- Sirach 44:16, RSV
What if God was Israel born to us 2000 years ago?
What if God was Israel born to us 2000 years ago? Or was it 12000 years ago?
The Sacred Dozen are probably the most Authentic 12 we could ever see.
Twelve archetypes have been proposed for use with branding: Sage, Innocent, Explorer, Ruler, Creator, Caregiver, Magician, Hero, Outlaw, Lover, Jester, and Regular Person.
There are 12 Tribes to Israel: Jacob was renamed Israel when God appeared to him when he was leaving Padn-Aram and blessed him. Jacob produced twelve sons, each of whom became the father of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda, Issachar, Zevulun, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, Benjamin.
The Scriptures record that the original apostles of Jesus were Peter; James; John; Andrew; Philip; Judas Iscariot; Matthew; Thomas; James, the son of Alpheus; Bartholomew; Judas Thaddeus; and Simon Zelotes.
The gifts of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12 are the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, different kinds of tongues, and interpretation of tongues.
Matthew 26:52-54 The Message (MSG) Jesus said, “Put your sword back where it belongs. All who use swords are destroyed by swords. Don’t you realize that I am able right now to call to my Father, and twelve companies-more, if I want them-of fighting angels would be here, battle-ready? But if I did that, how would the Scriptures come true that say this is the way it has to be?”
Postmodernism is a "stalemate" goal oriented mentality in chess game.
They know they can't win because they know they don't have it (the truth), yet they don't want to loose, so what they do is always looking for a draw.
Gin,
I recently heard it described like this: "Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, shit on the table, and then strut around as if they've won."
His philosophical ideas are great . His understanding of psychology maybe not so much. He assumes very high intelligence in these humanities professors.
He is setting off from the wrong foot here. You don't have to be intelligent to get a humanities masters or PHD, you just need to pick the right subject and viewpoint.
If I wanted an easy pass on a humanities PHD I would choose a thesis subject like "Proving the response to COV19 affects women in a disproportional way and thus proving muh patriarchy is alive and well and attempting to regain power"
I doubt leftists in the UK would read more than the title and introduction before gleefully passing the writer of it.
Seeing as leftists run every humanities dept in the UK I guess this tittle or a more academic variant of it would pass easily.
One could actually make an intresting study about how woman are more affected by covid-19 in regards to the additional time they have to spend with childcare and then comparing this to the additional time men spend with childcare and see if there are actual gender diffrences. So your idea is not to bad after all, although a little bit sloppy formulated.
@evan cavalier Yeah I saw that it was a year or two ago.
Had entirely forgotten about that until you mentioned it.
Humanity needs both strong community and competition to thrive and it's very hard to build a system (or religion) that works for all occasions.
Embracing contradiction in the attempt to conceptualize contradiction can lead to wisdom (i.e. Zen), but trying to reconcile contradictions in belief leads to harm and chaos.
Part of his logical argument is that the PhDs can’t possibly be that stupid - after all, they have a PhD. I would counter with ... “but they don’t”. They don’t have a PhD in math or physics. Indeed, they don’t even have a PhD in English or history. Rather they have a PhD, granted to them, by other PhDs within the same discipline that is devoid of logic. i.e. they are not thinkers but people who just want to belong.
I think we see this in the global climate change “scientists” who have perverted the fundamental scientific process to include manipulating data, recording false data, generating data from models and using it as real data, etc. They all have just accepted these perverse practices. Here again, the global climate change scientists are giving PhDs or credentials to other global climate change scientists. It is a classic example of group think.
@Twenty Faces vaccine deniers do not deny science either. They just question the additives to vaccines, and the need for herd immunity. The science is open to debate, but by labeling different points of view, as deniers, you in fact are not doing science anymore, it's propaganda and bullying.
Couldn’t agree more. Not all Ph.D.’s are created equal.
They have PhDs in Sophistry.
Twenty Faces...it used to be called global warming.
He also is assuming they are being honest. Do they really think all cultures are equal, or do they just say this to pander and use as a club against their adversaries? Are they like the white liberals who speak at length about racial equality, but insist that only white people can fix the ills of black society?
That is why it's so easy to troll these guys...... Eg: I reached my credit card limit, can I use yours? It's only money.....
Perfect, I like that.
"All truths are relative" is its an absolute statement and thus paradoxical. This one statement disproves postmodernism.
It is called "philosophical relativism". No truth, no facts - only opinions exist.
Very stupid and very postmodern indeed.
Excellent video. Thanks!
“Truth is not the issue here.”
Socialist are so smart and sure of themselves; however, not a single one is willing to pack their bags and move to a socialist country. It's time to force them out of the U.S.
Ok fascist
The funny thing about chaos theory is not that the universe is chaotic, it is that what is seemly chaotic are actually orderly. We use it all the time to predict the weather. We look at all the constants, things that don't change or change very little: mountains, oceans, flat lands, forest and so on, and take into consideration the variables heat, humidity, wind patters, season, and so on. We look at all this data and can predict what the weather will do in the future. It's not random for every effect their is a cause.
Just wondering, does the Socratic method work to unwind post modernism?
Is it wrong to agree with your hypothesis but still argue the case of convetionalism or kants idea of universal truths?
Socialism requires constantly monitoring and modifying human behavior to meet an acceptable societal "norm" or a police state
I just love how these smart guys can tell you how great our system is because it was simultaneously developed alongside our technological revolution. What are the options for historical societies? It seems like you can choose between an endless list of authoritarianism regimes of slightly different flavor, some theocracies and, what, 1 democracy and 1 republic.
Hicks should be a million times more we’ll known than Jordan Peterson.
He communicates with so much more clarity, and precision. He also uses the appropriate tone of voice and emotion
Peterson’s tone and emotion most of the time makes me not even hear what he is saying, and think that he’s nuts
How can they reconcile their epistemology with their socialist policy?
Ouija boards.
One reason for the popularity of anti-rationalist and emotion based philosophy is probably the influx of women in the universities. Their proclivity to put emotion first seems to be aligned with the theory.
Thanks for the insight.
To have a foundational understanding of philosophy is to apprehend the limitations of rationality. Where then do you go when the answers to life's deepest questions can't be accessed by reason?
Sorry, I don't have to throw out reason for my faith. So with Postmodernists, it's the ends justifies the means.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you *a reason of the hope that is in you* with meekness and fear:”
It all stems from a desire to be rebellious and fight against something, but coming from the most prosperous and egalitarian society in all of history.
That isn't to say we don't have a lot of corruption and problems to address, but I find postmodernists are less interested in those issues. They are especially intellectually lazy in their thinking when they do tackle them.
This sounds brilliantly insightful and accessible. Hats off.
I wish he would spend more time breaking down Kierkegaard in this convo like Rand did Kant.
I don't understand all the pro-Christian responses to this video. He describes postmodernism's descent from reason as being similar to the Christian theologists.
Christianity is true, rational and defensible.
Which version of Christianity? Most biblical scholars, including those in the Vatican, won't deny that the original Hebrew manuscripts didn't call Mary a virgin, that doesn't show up until the early Greek translations where the it substitutes the Hebrew term for "young woman" from the original text with the Greek word for "virgin" in the translation. The Greek version was then copied by scribes across the world with other little mistakes and errors that they actually trace how those copies moved through the world. This mistranslated word is the entire basis of the Trinity concept that was developed two hundred years later. Wait another 200 years and the passage in Gospel of John 8.1-8.11 related to the adulterer suddenly starts showing up out of nowhere and scribes then continued to include that newly inserted story into the future books and so on. If this is what you mean by true, rational and defensible, then I guess I agree.
Lmao this dude really thinks theism has been debunked? He says it with so much confidence that science has largely filled all the holes theism once did.
@@venga3 Nope, not even close lmao. the arguments for God have been anything but rebutted.
@@venga3 Well we seem to disagree on that. I'm not impressed by any of the responses to arguments for God.
@@venga3 Science can tell us literally nothing about God, seeing as it is limited to the study of the physical world. And God being the creator, necessarily rests outside of it. People accept or reject premises based on various biases amongst other things, Atheists are no different. I would've agreed with your last statement if it were indeed true that there are no sufficient reasons to believe in God, but that's literally a lie! I'm not a theist because i rest on "Blind faith and ignorance", as you atheist snarkily love to assert, far from it, I'm a theist precisely because i see good reasons to believe in the existence of a creator.
Actually atheism and secularism have played right into the hands of the Postmodernists. That's for the same reason as Communists abolished religion. If you want to stop the destruction of decent society, swallow your ignorant pride and get back to church.
@@venga3 yup, you're definitely part of the problem. BTW, Postmodernists deny the existence of truth, so good luck with that one.
Those last 5 minutes were pretty remarkable.
Avoid wrapping up your identity into your beliefs and you can change your beliefs as facts become clearer to u.
Post modernist: Is this blue or yellow?
Me: its actually green, a mixture of both I guess.
Post modernist: I didn't ask what color it is, I asked if its blue or yellow!
Me: But...
Post modernist: You see? You can't even answer your own questions logically! Even I know it is green.
Me: I just told you it was green.
Post modernist: Yes, except that I didn't ask you if it was green I asked 'blue' or 'yellow', do you undestand that concept?
Me: *shoot myself*
Haha this so reminds me arguments with my wife...
So many have gotten Religion all wrong,... The foundation upon which reason was built was created by God. Stupidity is thinking that a limited perspective of both nature and spirit will help us decide which is better and more important. *_When there "appears" to be a disagreement between science and religion, it either means that science's interpretation of nature is wrong, the believer's interpretation of scripture is wrong, OR BOTH!_*
So then you are saying that no one can know the answer. You can't tell if the Science is wrong or the religious interpretation is wrong, so then why bother with the scripture at all. You can't trust it because interpretation can be wrong, and you can't test it because the test could give you the wrong answer. That makes the religion pointless, and that's before you try to work out all the competing religions plus competing interpretations which contradict each other without Science advancing at all.
@@shawn4110 No. You said that, and I wholeheartedly disagree. You misunderstood what I said and then *_correctly_* rejected *_your_* misunderstanding... never touching what I actually said.
Of course you can tell in both science *_and_* religion. Regrettably, too many people (like you) use logical fallacies and get everything fouled up with muddy thinking. I've done that before, too. And it's not a fatal mistake.
Scripture is True. So is science. But the interpretations of both have been questionable at time by scientists and the religious using sloppy logic just as you have displayed. My logic isn't perfect, yet, and I've been working on it for 70 years; still learning. But I've experimented with miracles, even replicating many of them.
Science has had countless stumbling blocks, with the self-proclaimed experts using logical fallacies instead of logic. The "Clovis First" dogma, for instance. Thank goodness there were some scientists who were not afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon.
For anyone interested, read my book, *_The Bible's Hidden Wisdom,_* for lessons on logic and biblical interpretation. Read my book, *_The Science of Miracles,_* for information on how scientific method can be used on spiritual action. Read my book, *_Proof of God,_* for more information on how scripture is foundational to all physical reality -- and *_not_* the way the "creation scientists" attempt to mangle things. And, if you're interested in some solid science, check out my #1 Weather Bestseller, *_Climate Basics: Nothing to Fear;_* it gives simple science that handily debunks the warming alarmists on nearly every point of their climate hysteria.
@@RodMartinJr Yeah, so I wasn't claiming anything. Just reading your post which clearly states that any religious interpretation can be wrong and any scientific test to prove the religious claim can also be interpreted wrong. Therefore, you would need a way to test your interpretations that aren't through religion or science.
I agree you can tell what is true. By testing the claims in a repeatable methodology. So since you claim to have tested miracles, you should be able to detail your methodology so that I can do exactly the same thing and get exactly the same results.
Go ahead and detail one miracle test that can be repeated and get the same results. If you can't do that, no intelligent person would believe you. So can you do that?
@@shawn4110 You weren't claiming anything? LOL You said, "So then you are saying that no one can know the answer." You were claiming an interpretation of what I said that was entirely wrong. Re-read what I wrote and try again to understand the underlying intent.
@@RodMartinJr I don't think you understand what I mean. You listed every possible solution as potentially wrong, but didn't explain how to resolve the issue. So you are by definition unable to determine when a scientific conclusion is correct nor how to determine if a religious interpretation is correct.
I'll give an example. Suppose the scripture claimed that the earth was flat. If you check and find that your scientific test shows the earth is round. How do you know if your scientific conclusion is correct, versus the conclusion being wrong, versus the scripture being wrong, versus the scripture being misunderstood.
What test could possibly falsify the scripture, and if it can't be proven false, then how do you ever test it to know that it is correct? Something unfalsifiable cannot ever be proven correct, and your statement makes scripture unfalsifiable.
Brilliant and warm-hearted.
Watching this reminded me of Nietzsche's slave morality. Now I see a recommended video on this topic by the same speaker. UA-cam's algorithm is very impressive!
This guy is conflating post modernism with socialism. There's plenty of socialists who aren't post modern and vice versa. Very misleading
Spot on. Only comment I've read that make sense. When there's a real crisis, like 2008 & covid 19, it socialist policies that come to the rescue. Not a crony capitalist in sight. Some folk don't realise that it was a government handout/bailout in 2008 that rescued the so called 'too big to fail' financial institutions......and again during the recent pandemic. I consider myself a socialist with a small 'S', but I vehemently disagree with postmodernism and their unlikely marriage to Marxist ideology.
The title is ungrammatical. Work harder to get that sort of thing right. Be professional.
Michael Carper you’re really clever thank you
@@williammarshalknight1846 Carper is a moron.
BenMJay I know 👍
How is it ungrammatical?
@@clivegoodman16 Why DON'T Post-Modernist...As academia debt-slaves a generation for the neoliberal banksters...Which granted are commies...But that makes Hicks (and Peterson) accomplices, too!
This was interesting and helpful. My argument is that capitalism isn’t happening anymore. Government intervention isn’t socialism. If government doesn’t intervene, if if doesn’t regulate capitalism the logical conclusion is corporate monopolies
Keith Bell perhaps, but only for a short period of time. Monopolies can only exist for any great length of time if they have support from the state, often in the form of regulation. See: mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly a short breakdown.
Amazing content
Stephen Hicks, like most people, doesn't know shit about postmodernism. His book on the topic is one of the worst academic books to have ever been written. He fabricates quotes, misrepresents postmodern arguments, labels thinkers that are not postmodern and even some that are against postmodernism as postmodern and provides very few sources for his claims. He spend a whole book building a strawman and attacking without even demonstrating a basic understanding of it (like most people who use the term "postmodern" as a sort of intellectual boogeyman). Cuck philosophy did a great takedown os his book, which is also a critique of Hicks' ideas about postmodernism.
such eloquence
What was the original title?
He definitely took Kant and Kierkegaard out of context at 2:33 - their true arguments were substantailly deeper - not just choosing faith iver reason and knowledge. That really shortchanges two tremendously influential thinkers. Kant examined reason for it’s internal structure, while Kierkegaard saw the complementary nature of faith and reason, that reason must in a sense crucify itself on things it cannot grasp (he was applying it to the incarnation but it can apply about every huge question - why is there something rather than nothing, etc). He also saw it as the *glorification*, not the *defeat* of Reason that it could come to know its limits. Really encourage you to read more into it - found this excerpt that hints at Kierkegaard’s actual argument:
books.google.com/books?id=aGEtGhl-gEAC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=kierkegaard+crucified+reason&source=bl&ots=sE-OaZf4uv&sig=ACfU3U2N_fCr0O3GusQ28ldDeQGbOZDJcg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSwa721bjqAhUBl3IEHUYBCqYQ6AEwCnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=kierkegaard%20crucified%20reason&f=false
Can someone link the aforementioned article?
4:59 is a terrifying paragraph, given the implications it has today
The comparison between sophists and postmodernists/neo-marxists should not end with the claims that they both believe in the subjectivity of all things but that they both deal in absolutes and act superior to their counterpart. The sophists were merely children compared to the wise man ‘Socrates’ as Plato’s work is in itself fiction and he is painting - like many other fictional stories - the old man as the wise and experienced. It is within the rebellious nature of young post modernists just like it was within to the sophists to assume all older people caused the problems they now had to fix which is a generalisation many young my age assume. Assumption based on aesthetic, absolutism based off pre hierarchal structures, subjective truth stemming from personal experiences and moral relativism abstracted from objective fact are the main problems within the post modernists.
I always like Kierkegaard the most. I don’t think he’s as 1-dimensional as to be a simple irrationalism. He had a thing for pseudonyms and for writing books that were just people arguing with themselves. There is large debate on if he was actually an irrationalist or if he was was a rationalist because it’s hard to find what he actually believed, this due to the hyperindividualism that we do know he most certainly held, which compelled him to force the reader to choose the right answer for themselves in his arguments
12 of some of the most important minutes, every rational person should firmly grasp.
It is postmodernity where we are at present. Postmodernism that you criticise is ideology.
The truth doesn’t matter and must be ignored if it does not forward the ideology, the party must always be protected and come first.
We are living out 1984
SirDroidThe1st totally agreed. It is amazing to see what is happening today and most do not realize what is happening.
Brillant. The more I know the Man, the more I love my dog. And I don't even have a dog.
Good video! I feel there is something to the irrational claims from post modernists as well. They can only play Jung's Hero archetype so long as an enemy exists for them to righteously fight against. This embodiment of the hero archetype allows one to elevate above anxiety in a time of chaos (ironically it is postmodern destruction of traditional values and success in making all realities appear of equal validity which created the chaos they are trying to save themselves from)
Well observed.
"Here's my devastating critique of positivism. Also, here's some quantitative research on the existence of structural racism."
Umm . . .
Quality. Gratitude
It's about winning the conversation not having a conversation with the postmodern types. It's a competition of words because they can't compete physically and feel insecure. Since they can't dominant physically they try to dominant verbally. Hence their desire for PC-like compliance over language, giving a sense of superiority and control. It's kind of an ideological extension of the classic brawn VS brain dichotomy.
Important analysis. Seeking the source. The "Deepest-belief." Good work. If a "deepest-belief" exists, it holds supremacy in one's mind and action? If that deepest-belief is flawed, corrupts oneself and harms others, wouldn't the individual seek to correct? Regardless, shouldn't society require self-preservation? Or should all die defending the flawed individual's "deepest-belief?" Stalin thought so of his deepest-belief? If a deepest-belief could be changed, should it? And if deepest-belief can be changed away from self-corruption and harming-others, could it not be changed toward? (more...)
Left is winning. Rationality is losing.
What is the deepest-belief of the Leftist (Post-modernist, as you call it.)? What is the correct deepest-belief? Can the deepest-belief be changed? All crucial questions opened by this discussion? Excellent work.
“In general, the men of lower intelligence won out. Afraid of their own shortcomings and of the intelligence of their opponents, so that they would not lose out in reasoned argument or be taken by surprise by their quick-witted opponents, they boldly moved into action."
- Thucydides
Khun said that? Or he just included Khun for some other reason? I don't recall anything like that from studying The Structure of Scientific Rebolutions.
He doesn't say that science isn't true. The most important part of his work is the pragmatic analysis of truth. Is pragmatism post modernism or anti science?
So words can be considered violent, when they are used as a weapon. That's a compelling metaphor, and of course, in an irrational, pathological mind there is no barrier between metaphor and reality.
Very nice analysis. Postmodernism and socialism are the new religions.
In the 1960's people believed in Marxism based on reason. In the 2010's people believed in Marxism by the power of Faith. Hallelujah and Amen.
If there's no objective Truth then there's no such thing as a contradiction.
Things are only contradictions if you accept the premises. Some things are contradictions on one level but not another. William James famously said that "if you run into a contradiction, make a distinction".
Greatest intellectual slap-down in internet history.
The biggest problem I have with any relativist, is that they always try to argue that relativism is true. That is their biggest contradiction. I never saw any relativist open to the possibility that someone that think truth is absolute Is as right as someone that sees it as relative.
Nothing can be proved = Truth is subjective = All interpretations are equal = Lies are as valid as truth.
Because you can Don't Do something, but you can't Do Don't something.
1. Unseen and seen
2. Scripture and the world
3. Soul and material body
4. Life and Death
5. Good and evil.
There is power in not seeing your own contradictions.
Is it easier to believe in socialism if you are receiving a government pay check?
"No man is so blind as the one whose source of income requires him not to see."
Money is also relative. The more you have the more relatives you have.
lol
Money, you've got lots of friends
Crowding round the door
When you're gone, spending ends
They don't come no more
~ From the song "God Bless the Child"
The Narcissist’s Prayer could be renamed the Postmodernist prayer. If you understand narcissists, you understand postmodernists
“That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.”
That bottom line really is the bottom line. It's not that they don't see their contradictions. They just don't care because their root motivation is to win, and to punish
Logical consistency is simply not required to win or punish. FOGS is more effective: Fear Obligation Guilt and Shame are more effective.
That's very good. Emotions wash over everything. Ego washes over everything. Contradictions be damned. Until they have to do something in the physical world - carpentry, build a house, build a boat, build an airplane, run a business, then they better get everything right, lined up, consistent, or reality will bite them in the ass.
@@TorMax9 exactly. It can take quite a while before reality finally smacks them in the head, but like any ponzi scheme, it's a matter of when, not if
Totally agree with the primary thrust. The only minor issue is definition; Socialism is defined as the worker controlling the means of their livelihood. Thus a farmer, who owns his farm, is a socialist, or living the ideology of socialism. However I do understand most people who use the term socialist means socialism imposed and enforced by a Marxist economic system, add the commune system to remove the natural socialists, such as the farmers, and presto, you end up with a system which is proven to be dysfunctional. Only post-modernism would support this.
Your definition of Socialism is wrong. Socialism is state control of the economy. Marxism is workers state control control of the economy. Marx didn't invent Socialism.
To add a bit of interesting info: Fascism is national state's control of the economy. National Socialism is racial state's control of the economy.
You are correct that Marx did not invent socialism and the term Socialism does have a wide range of meanings, with this wiki definition summarises most of these: Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of enterprises.
The definition of Marxism is less clear. Marxism is defined as an economic theory created by Marx and Engles, but the best definition of what is it was stated by a Yugoslavian economic minister. If a country has a stock market it cannot be Marxist. Marx states it’s the system which replaces a free market economy, or capitalism.
The issue with Socialism is it does not work in a free market very well. For the workers to self-manage an enterprise, how do they assemble the capital to create the enterprise? To make it work you need to replace the free market with something. Marx’s answer was a top-down centrally controlled system, which may be in theory owned by the community, but in practice by the party and eventually by the state, which became indistinguishable from the party.
@@peterfmodel Thank you for elaborating on that, Peter. From what wiki are these definitions?
here is the link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
One-sided arguments for a self-admiration society of secular protestants who are frustrated by abiding disagreement with their paragons of temporal monotheism
Huh? The protestants I know are darn fine people.
Superior in every way to cultural marxist thugs!
@@larrydugan1441 But do you know any 'secular' Protestants? And do you know anything about that cohort? Or do you think that such a cohort is nonexistent because you know nothing about them? BTW I'm pro enlightenment + pro science & technology + pro democracy-capitalism, etc. etc. but I'm also an erudite intellectual, therefore able to call-out faulty rhetoric consumed by one-dimensional thinkers who are bigoted towards alternatives . Hear this talk (abridged) ua-cam.com/video/Tlsm-VPEk0Y/v-deo.html (unabridged) ua-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/v-deo.html
@@BenCollin
My guess is that you are classic self agrandizing pseudo intellectual.
I have never been very impressed by modern day intellectuals.
They pretty much seem to get everything wrong.
I do detest marxists in their various slithering forms!
@@larrydugan1441 Well, that proves it: you’ve shown yourself as not having learnt any more than post-secondary diploma (and probably less) so believe that you have more than enough to confidently express opinion and knowledge that is lower than common sense. This conversation is deemed by me as over, because it is as useless to me as it is to anyone else educated.
@@BenCollin Lol. I have the same accreditation as Socrates.
Any Dummy can get a PhD nowadays, many do! Where did you get yours?
Erudite intellectual? Is that a college course?
I will direct you to the rampant stupidity that comes out of the Yale English Department!
The title is the opposite of what he says in the video. unless I misunderstood, he said they are aware of the contradictions.
3:35
- and Heidegger’s feelings said “nazism.”