The left hates the fact that Hicks draws a comparison and the analogies directly with what was happening in Europe, particularly in the Weimar Republic in the 30s, and what’s happening with these doofus so called ‘students’ on campuses today in the 2020s. Get over it all you idiots, Hicks nails it!
Descartes emphasized function over consciousness or experience. Now the philosophical and scientific world has the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. When the question is either/or the answer likely should be both, as reality is unity; or both. Our dual brains; as well as nature, or the way we perceive it; creates a dual system where we can function and choose, as with unity there would not be choice as all would be One. Reincarnation in which the early Church believed until it changed, so people seeing one life only would make a greater effort in the view of the Church. A great interview; both by interviewer and interviewee. Now we are faced with the latest atheistic ideology (atheism is always coming up with ideologies); which is trans humanism. Religion, the definition of which is; that to which we are bound will fight trans humanism as it fought the dark occult before the age of reason as well as communism in modern times, and religion will win. In Eastern religion and philosophy Consciousness; is all there is; and is God. A human is an expression of God consciousness; a tree is an expression of God consciousness; all that exists is God consciousness (fundamental); Mind; likely elemental; emerging with quantum events, as does the physical macro and micro elements. The modern view has to change and get back to basics as it is ungrounded which leaves a void and is a breeding ground for ideologies which are the real threat.
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.
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.
@@artlessons1 I was long convinced Whitehead’s statement about footnotes could only have come from someone who understood the Greek paradigm from its exterior. When I read about his attempt to replace “particle physics” ontology with a sort of dynamism ontology, it was the explanation I’d anticipated. Postmodernists have discussed the distance between Athens and Jerusalem at great length, and the revival of rabbinical philosophy that characterized Derrida (and those before him like Levinas and Rosenzweig) is that same sort of move outside of Greek objectivism. One must have an alternative, though, and Hicks has none because he doesn’t understand Hebrew thought-so he’s forced to maintain his love affair with Aristotle.
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.
32:52 if one does postmodernism correctly, one is NOT left with a conflict model. Read the prologue to Totality and Infinity-Levinas rants that history is characterized by violence, and the whole point of his project was to replace the incessant violence of Greek metaphysics with something like the Hebrew shalom.
The modernism now needs efficient meaning-making that can be applied to all lives disoriented by postmodernism. Stop the fight between the sexes and elevate beyond all the victim groups created by woke ideology. This fight for power and success must be made a less steep a slope, but still worth pursuing without people finding it artificial. If we can breed new plants that grow better we could make a system where people are happy from the start and where being content is something being generated in the process rather than skepticism and a desire for a revolution. I think we have to expose the skepticism and post modernism now in operation in society. Belonging to the virtuous post modernists that think they do good while actually being mean and selfish must be replaced by something more fulfilling. We want journalism back. We want the intolerant and self proclaimed justice warriors to start producing their own creations and have them tested in reality. That feeling they feel. It can not possibly be happiness. The revolutionaries must see their own corruption before they run the same path as Mao, Fidel Castro and the like. Corrupt post modernists are no better than corrupt modernists. We can sense their intolerance and their lies about being virtuous. We can sense they come from grief and discomfort. It is objectively real. The proof is inspired people does not oppress other people. The racket is obvious.
I'm not sure he states it explicitly here, but I feel like it's implied anyway. One of the common and central tropes of these critiques of postmodernism is that it has led to the current division in Western societies (or at least it's backing one of the factions). While it merely just perfectly captures the situation, when people live in drastically different realities by virtue of having different sources of information. Like... yes, your experience and worldview is defined by your social status. Obviously. And they are mad at that. It's like blaming a weatherman for the storm.
Very interesting episode but I would recommend everybody to watch "A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Post-Modernism"" by CCK Philosophy. There are many reasons to be very critical with Hicks.
I'm a non-philosopher type. But i enjoyed this; frankly there was a lot oacked into the discussion. Around 36:47 he talks about the 3 competing philosophies....but i have a suspicion that most intellectuals and regular people take parts of each and hold a centric view of life. No offense, but I think people who strongly hold one particular belief are the ones who create tension and hurt in society.
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.
@@metamodernbarbellanother prominent nut who says postmodernists refuse to debate him is Jordan Peterson, who takes his entire understanding of postmodernism from Hicks and his entire understanding of Marx from anti-semites… seems a popular influence around here. Funny how turning “postmodern” into a catch-all term results in this comment section blithely calling anyone who disagrees a typical postmodernist.
@@jacquiecotillard9699 I've beaten up on Dempsey enough at this point. I do think the comment section is revealing. End of the day, if you're going to judge pomo by its followers over its thought-leaders then...metamodernism may not come out of that too well.
@@jacquiecotillard9699 Peterson also refuses to debate Richard Wolff on Marxism but I've plenty of other reasons to dismiss his philosophy and "teachings" (outside of psychology)
@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.
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.
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 :)
@@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.
It's "interesting" to see Dr. Hicks not mentioning Ayn Rand's name and her philosophy (Objectivism) even once as a possible solution for post-postmodernism... especially knowing that Dr. Hicks is a Senior Scholar for The Atlas Society, an organization that is entirely based on Ayn Rand's ideas with its main goal stated at Atlas' website: "Our Moonshot: Engage a billion young minds with the ideas of Ayn Rand"! Throughout the video you see Hicks is agreeing and applauding Brendan with the existence of "Relativistic/partial truths" and alike. Ayn Rand furiously refuted all the BSs that come with postmodernism and called their great grandfather, Immanuel Kant, the most evil individual in human history. Do you think Hicks' disregard of Ayn Rand has something to do with the fact that he's now buddy-buddy with Jordan Peterson, who relentlessly misinterprets and bashes Rand's fictional writings and philosophy?
Where is he getting “a millennia” for the duration of serious development of philosophy? How about Nyaya and Samkhya and many millennia of work that preceded? Also, “a millennium”, “many millennia”. Gotcha.
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 .
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?
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. @@nickhbt
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
THANK YOU SO MUCH, Brendan and Dr Hicks! This was like an eight-hour intravenous bag of hope into my bloodstream.
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.
The left hates the fact that Hicks draws a comparison and the analogies directly with what was happening in Europe, particularly in the Weimar Republic in the 30s, and what’s happening with these doofus so called ‘students’ on campuses today in the 2020s. Get over it all you idiots, Hicks nails it!
Descartes emphasized function over consciousness or experience. Now the philosophical and scientific world has the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. When the question is either/or the answer likely should be both, as reality is unity; or both. Our dual brains; as well as nature, or the way we perceive it; creates a dual system where we can function and choose, as with unity there would not be choice as all would be One.
Reincarnation in which the early Church believed until it changed, so people seeing one life only would make a greater effort in the view of the Church. A great interview; both by interviewer and interviewee. Now we are faced with the latest atheistic ideology (atheism is always coming up with ideologies); which is trans humanism.
Religion, the definition of which is; that to which we are bound will fight trans humanism as it fought the dark occult before the age of reason as well as communism in modern times, and religion will win.
In Eastern religion and philosophy Consciousness; is all there is; and is God. A human is an expression of God consciousness; a tree is an expression of God consciousness; all that exists is God consciousness (fundamental); Mind; likely elemental; emerging with quantum events, as does the physical macro and micro elements.
The modern view has to change and get back to basics as it is ungrounded which leaves a void and is a breeding ground for ideologies which are the real threat.
Fantastic discussion! Great guest!
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.
This guy is straight to the point! Love it.
Very well structured!
Stephen Hicks doubles down on modernism.
Arch modernist
Great and very clear overview of the history of Western intellectual history. Everyone should have a handle on this.
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.
@@artlessons1 I was long convinced Whitehead’s statement about footnotes could only have come from someone who understood the Greek paradigm from its exterior. When I read about his attempt to replace “particle physics” ontology with a sort of dynamism ontology, it was the explanation I’d anticipated. Postmodernists have discussed the distance between Athens and Jerusalem at great length, and the revival of rabbinical philosophy that characterized Derrida (and those before him like Levinas and Rosenzweig) is that same sort of move outside of Greek objectivism. One must have an alternative, though, and Hicks has none because he doesn’t understand Hebrew thought-so he’s forced to maintain his love affair with Aristotle.
Great content.
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.
Cogent and descriptive.
Thanks much!
Excellent.
Interesting discussion. I was waiting for a more indepth look at metamodernism in contrast to modernism and postmodernism.
A very good summary. Thank you
Great interview!
Simply wonderful.
32:52 if one does postmodernism correctly, one is NOT left with a conflict model. Read the prologue to Totality and Infinity-Levinas rants that history is characterized by violence, and the whole point of his project was to replace the incessant violence of Greek metaphysics with something like the Hebrew shalom.
The modernism now needs efficient meaning-making that can be applied to all lives disoriented by postmodernism. Stop the fight between the sexes and elevate beyond all the victim groups created by woke ideology.
This fight for power and success must be made a less steep a slope, but still worth pursuing without people finding it artificial. If we can breed new plants that grow better we could make a system where people are happy from the start and where being content is something being generated in the process rather than skepticism and a desire for a revolution.
I think we have to expose the skepticism and post modernism now in operation in society. Belonging to the virtuous post modernists that think they do good while actually being mean and selfish must be replaced by something more fulfilling.
We want journalism back. We want the intolerant and self proclaimed justice warriors to start producing their own creations and have them tested in reality.
That feeling they feel. It can not possibly be happiness. The revolutionaries must see their own corruption before they run the same path as Mao, Fidel Castro and the like.
Corrupt post modernists are no better than corrupt modernists.
We can sense their intolerance and their lies about being virtuous. We can sense they come from grief and discomfort. It is objectively real.
The proof is inspired people does not oppress other people. The racket is obvious.
I'm not sure he states it explicitly here, but I feel like it's implied anyway. One of the common and central tropes of these critiques of postmodernism is that it has led to the current division in Western societies (or at least it's backing one of the factions). While it merely just perfectly captures the situation, when people live in drastically different realities by virtue of having different sources of information. Like... yes, your experience and worldview is defined by your social status. Obviously. And they are mad at that. It's like blaming a weatherman for the storm.
The pre-modern does not start from the premise that all knowledge is obtained or derived from revelation.
This is wise and good. 👍🤔
Hicks shares similar views with Vervaeke on post-modernism in the "relativizing critique section.
There is objective truth and subjective truth that depends on context.
Best knowledge ❤
Very interesting episode but I would recommend everybody to watch "A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Post-Modernism"" by CCK Philosophy. There are many reasons to be very critical with Hicks.
What reasons?
Critical ‘with’ Hicks, or ‘of’ Hicks? lol
I'm a non-philosopher type. But i enjoyed this; frankly there was a lot oacked into the discussion.
Around 36:47 he talks about the 3 competing philosophies....but i have a suspicion that most intellectuals and regular people take parts of each and hold a centric view of life.
No offense, but I think people who strongly hold one particular belief are the ones who create tension and hurt in society.
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.
@@metamodernbarbellanother prominent nut who says postmodernists refuse to debate him is Jordan Peterson, who takes his entire understanding of postmodernism from Hicks and his entire understanding of Marx from anti-semites… seems a popular influence around here. Funny how turning “postmodern” into a catch-all term results in this comment section blithely calling anyone who disagrees a typical postmodernist.
@@jacquiecotillard9699 I've beaten up on Dempsey enough at this point.
I do think the comment section is revealing. End of the day, if you're going to judge pomo by its followers over its thought-leaders then...metamodernism may not come out of that too well.
@@jacquiecotillard9699
Peterson also refuses to debate Richard Wolff on Marxism but I've plenty of other reasons to dismiss his philosophy and "teachings" (outside of psychology)
@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.
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.
He needs to look into Rorty and Habermasian views as well
I often wonder, how much drug use, poor health, and media addiction have fueled the post modern movement?
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.
@@metamodernbarbell 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.
I think the pivot in the 90"s was the arrest of John Gotti, as depicted in Godfather 2
I knew the comment section of this video would be intense…lol
It's "interesting" to see Dr. Hicks not mentioning Ayn Rand's name and her philosophy (Objectivism) even once as a possible solution for post-postmodernism... especially knowing that Dr. Hicks is a Senior Scholar for The Atlas Society, an organization that is entirely based on Ayn Rand's ideas with its main goal stated at Atlas' website: "Our Moonshot: Engage a billion young minds with the ideas of Ayn Rand"!
Throughout the video you see Hicks is agreeing and applauding Brendan with the existence of "Relativistic/partial truths" and alike. Ayn Rand furiously refuted all the BSs that come with postmodernism and called their great grandfather, Immanuel Kant, the most evil individual in human history.
Do you think Hicks' disregard of Ayn Rand has something to do with the fact that he's now buddy-buddy with Jordan Peterson, who relentlessly misinterprets and bashes Rand's fictional writings and philosophy?
Where is he getting “a millennia” for the duration of serious development of philosophy? How about Nyaya and Samkhya and many millennia of work that preceded? Also, “a millennium”, “many millennia”. Gotcha.
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. @@nickhbt
Peterson Academy??
Instant Bzzzzzzt