Metamodern Spirituality | Postmodern Philosophy and Beyond (w/ Stephen Hicks)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ก.ค. 2024
- Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy and author of Explaining Postmodernism, joins me to discuss the transformation of worldviews from the premodern to the modern and from the modern to the postmodern. After his incisive overview of these dramatic shifts, we discuss what it might look like to integrate the genuinely positive contributions of postmodern thought, and consider where we are headed in a post-postmodern world.
0:00 Introduction
1:58 How to Trace Philosophical History
4:15 From Premodern to Modern
15:56 From Modern to Postmodern
34:07 How Do We Move Beyond the Modern and Postmodern while Integrating Their Strengths?
43:28 Relativizing the Critique
51:14 Living After Postmodernism
www.BrendanGrahamDempsey.com
Thank you for posting this interview with Dr. Hicks, who certainly ranks among the top scholars in the realm of critique of postmodernism.
That is actually quite arguable.
You should have him back! Much more to talk about (especially on objectivity).
This was a great interview and he does an excellent job of breaking down complex ideas into easily understandable terms. Would love to see a follow up to hear his thoughts on what comes next.
Great content.
Fantastic discussion! Great guest!
Very well structured!
Great discourse. I was recently told by a professor that my categorization of postmodern thinking as essentially relativism was incorrect and that post modernists are anti relativism. Personally, i find the distinction to be minimal if even fair, and impractical at best.
Seems like whatever you say about postmodernism, the postmodernist will deny it and tell you you are wrong.
Great interview!
Excellent.
This is wise and good. 👍🤔
Premodern "religion" certainly must include the platonic and vedantic metaphysics as well as not on mystical revelation and experience, but the role of reason in intelligibility of reality.
Modern must include the shift of science from a method to a metaphysic.
And the postmodern must include roots in Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and Wittgenstein.
And the narrative of enchantment, disenchantment, and reenchantment is adjacent to all of this.
Moreover the absence, presence and rejection of foundationalism are core.
But this is a good discussion, other than Hicks' scientism which collapses his contribution to history rather than value. Brendan is perhaps too polite regarding Hicks' regressive and blinkered devotion to modernity.
Ultimately, the postmodern opens a space for recapture of the best of premodernism to be recaptured. Is that meta modernism?
Yeah, absolutely. I think the counter enlightenment and the romantic movement was another precursor to postmodernism and it was sharply critical of enlightenment era hyper-rationalism. As you say critiques of modernism can open the door to recapture the best of premodernism, such as elements of Vedantic and Platonic metaphysics. Such schools are enquiry based, using a kind of higher reason or logic and not just a demand for unverifiable belief (Ken Wilber has that idea of the pre and trans rational fallacy) Modernism with its reductionism and scientism can be a major barrier to this.. How many times do we find people struggling with their rusted on materialist assumptions when trying to understand something like Vedanta or Platonism.
Interesting feedback and insightful. Where are we headed in the next turn toward narratives about who we are, the nature of reality and valuation as a human/historical process?
As Whitehead famously said, all of philosophy can be footnoted to Plato.
"Must " as if essential, that in the existential world does not exist. Having said that, postmodernism is an extension of the concepts of the names you mentioned. Agreed or disagreed with their pieces to the puzzle.
A very good summary. Thank you
Hicks shares similar views with Vervaeke on post-modernism in the "relativizing critique section.
Stephen Hicks doubles down on modernism.
Yeah.
Arch modernist
There is objective truth and subjective truth that depends on context.
Whilst obv it's up to Brendan who he invites, I looked to see if there was an equivalent figure from the pro-postmodernist side and I didn't really see that. Just something I noticed.
I tried to be that figure in this conversation. Have had on guests more pro-postmodern than anti, though, for sure. James Cussen, Jason Storm, Sophie Strand, Jeremy Johnson. Have any recs?
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey
You probably can get an inkling of my thoughts on that.
I can think of some people who wouldn't agree with Jason Storm as pro-postmodern! I am thinking the Pill Pod guys.
Obviously you have had metamodernists on the show, all of whom would, I imagine, claim to have integrated postmodernism or, perhaps more impressively, humbly aspire to do so. My point, I think it was clear, is that you have invited on a guest whose entire project is anti-postmodern (edit: appears to be full-blown Randian erm wow) and really didn't say anything he wouldn't have said elsewhere. With all charity to the people you have mentioned, they are not equivalent figures from the other side. I appreciate you have to get the people to actually come on, but 'postmodernists won't come on my show!!' sounds a bit Dave Rubin, as uncharitable as I appreciate that might come across! So hopefully you wo'nt play that card.
It's early and I am writing on my phone before I attend to other things, so regret if this is too sharp but this is what I have the time to produce rn.
To the best of my knowledge, the pre-modern Aristotelian tradition does not start with the divine and derive everything from that. Maybe what the professor says applies more to the Platonic strand of thought.
In demonstrating by reason that God exists, Aquinas starts from the natural world.
@10:26 This is, in fact, the modernist position that he is attributing to the pre-modern thinkers. The pre-modern thinkers started with the senses, especially Aristotle. Descartes, arguably the first modern philosopher, was the one who advocated starting from non-sensory 'data'. Kant elaborated this to the point that all sensory data, the world of things, was unknowable. This is why meta-modernism will go nowhere. It perpetuates the errors of both modernism and post-modernism while purporting to be something new. The Moscow-Tartu and Peircean schools of semiotics have done a lot of important research on this subject but the so-called meta-modernists are apparently completely unaware, still drowning in a pool of hyper-modern solipsism and historical ignorance.
I think the pivot in the 90"s was the arrest of John Gotti, as depicted in Godfather 2
So hold on :) If postmodernist says "there is no such thing as truth" - is that statement true? Because if it is, it is self contradictory. So it has to be false :)
That’s correct. That’s called the “performative contradiction” of postmodern relativism. A key insight that forces its own transcendence.
You don't think postmodernists have had something like this 'insight'?
Tbh this is getting a bit too Stefan Molyneux for my tastes.
@@alanfarquharhill Perhaps you could point me to an instance where a postmodern thinker addresses this issue?
@@BrendanGrahamDempsey Well Derrida certainly addressed it. But yeah, I will post a link or two in the next 24h to where this has been discussed. In gym then with Hanzi crew this evening - you could probably find them in the meantime.
In very crude terms the accusation of performative contradiction relies on 'there are no facts' = 'it is a fact that there is no facts'. Rhetorically this has some force, but that from the point of view of the postmodernist this may be part of the problem and exactly what they are working against. Hopefully not without irony.
The metaphysical foundations of reality, form and matter, essence and existence, have never been refuted and demonstrate the existence of the necessarily existing infinite and transcendent. Why the cosmos is intelligible. Modern science arose from Christian culture. the "head of a pin" trope is very insulting to some of the best minds ever like Aquinas .
It’s a shame that the first book you read on postmodernism was written by someone who doesn’t understand the subject.
The expert professor on the subject who has written multiple books about it doesn't understand it but randos in the comment section who just show up to virtue signal are the ones who REALLY know what they're talking about. 😂🤦🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️
@@taofallenstar6419 if one reads the pramary sources in comparison to the words Hicks puts into their mouths one quickly finds that he miss characterises or (perhaps worse for his apparent argument) misrepresents the positions he purports to explain.
In this particular video for example at about 26:00 he equates Logical Positivism with Post Modernism when the logical positivity project was PRECISELY to exclude interpretation and subjectivity from the 'realm of the meaningful' ; so to speak.
Hicks is like a Meta Modern troll under the bridge of memes, and we (übermensch) need to adopt the persona of Billy Goat Gruff, barge through, and graze the grass on the other side. Expertise and authority are not synonyms! It is only you who can decide whether the grass might in fact be greener but do you believe the words of the troll or the evidence of experience?
Ad hominem critique. How postmodern.
@@matthewrobertson7064 for clarity, are you suggesting that I was using add hominem? My intention was to talk to the substance of the argument.
Note, Nick, that "equates" is your word. In the interview, the point is that LP had already arrived at metaphysical anti-realism in the generation before, and that metaphysical anti-realism was incorporated by the PM in the next generation. No "equating" but making a point about intellectual lineage. @@nickbtggl4396