Great video. I agree there are many things both beautiful and horrifying about the postmodern world. Like you described, it's a mist in which creativity flourishes and individuals pursue knowledge at their own pace, to their heart's content. It's an era for artists and a limbo for critics. But people are not just artists; they also hold opinions, and in a world where everyone's opinion is in some sense valid (and therefore equally invalid) conflicts which must be resolved, cannot be resolved through reason. If worst happens, even simple disagreements may only be solvable through violence/coercion. I believe that, if individuals or a society in general (to describe it postmodernly) developed some system to moderate conflicts, which neither resorted to violence or mobocracy, that would, I feel, be the first step to starting knowledge anew and fresh (or rather, establish some communication between individuals and provide a framework for debate, which in turn would build up consensus). It would give us footing, however slightly. But what form that compromise would take I have no clue.
It seems to me this idea of “post” modernity is just more modernity: Modernity continuing the project of “disenchanting” the world by finally disenchanting itself. Science, mathematics, reason, etc. were “enchanted” once... seen as paths to a kind of ultimate, universal, transcendent truth. Now they’re just tools.
Changing terminology doesn't change the referent phenomena. What we see in postmodernism has happened before. The Greeks experienced the same thing with their skeptics who arose following their Golden Age. The same phenomenon reappeared in the wake of the Renaissance, Reformation, and 30 Years War, with the resulting widespread despair felt toward belief systems and existing authority structures. This is how the western world ended up with Renee Descartes, the Age of Enlightenment, and Rationalism that persists in the modern age. The same occurred with philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and the Existentialists. In each instance, deep skepticism (not to mention deep pessimism) toward existing paradigms resulted in their rejection, and sometimes their eventual overthrow. Each iteration of this phenomenon overlapped in time with some major, accepted paradigm even before its overthrow. Sometimes it continued along with a given paradigm without ever overthrowing it. We still hear people praising Platonism and describing all other philosophy as the mere footnotes to Plato despite the facts that Skeptics took over Plato's Academy. We still have people who believe in God despite a number of Enlightenment thinkers who openly dismiss the metaphysics necessary to theism. Postmodernism is no different. It rejects meta-narratives out of the same skepticism - i.e., the same profound doubt, suspicion, and rejection of existing paradigms of knowledge and power that characterized previous instances of this phenomenon. Yet, modernism and rationalism continue concurrently, for the time being. We still have nations, scientists, scholars, and theists who continue unabated. Men need to understand themselves and their environment to find meaning, and they create structures or paradigms to meet this need. This is why new paradigms arise, Phoenix like, from the ashes of all previously failed paradigms. Man has the genius to create new structures and paradigms because of this need. This is why one should predict that Postmodernism, as yet one more iteration of skepticism, will eventually pass. It may result in a new world view, but some world view, old or new, will arise and persist.
Enjoyed this very much. Four years old but acts as a great introduction to our current condition and Dr Macfarlane has a great mind and depth. Metamodernism comes after post-modernism, apparently, and may provide some of the tools and a framework for addressing the fragmentation and dispersion of the hyper-world we inhabit.
Although is clear that we have the theoretically standpoint of a post-structuralism society and its heterogenous nature, but by any means we are not there yet. There is a strong resistance from current authorities and systems to achieve that plurality. A post-modernist society implies a society that abandons their tendency of their ideology to prevail, instead ideologies will become micro-narratives and coexist to each other, forming a rhizome pattern of progression. Great Introduction.
I normally pride myself on an ability to remain emotionally unmoved by the presentation of facts about our world. I struggled to retain my usual stoicism in considering some of the information contained in this lecture. Moreover, I felt a rising panic at the thought of the disintegration of our old mode of being into the chaotic unknown beyond modernity. It seems the internet must necessarily come at a cost - in exchange for the equal access to information and influence over our culture the internet provides, we must simultaneously undermine the power of the institutions which once granted us a sense of security on a societal level. The ship of our species is no longer headed by the wisdom of a captain or navigator. We drift in the direction which appeals to the majority power within our culture. But without the continual influence of an authority structure, we never gain momentum in any direction and only bounce back and forth like a bobber on the water's surface suddenly jerked here and there by the nibble of innumerable fish beneath the surface.
Professor Alan is presenting an interpretation of the current western paradigm of knowledge. He seems concerned that there is no unifying meta-narrative across humans. I have two points of disagreement: 1. The belief in the lack of a meta-narrative is in itself a meta-narrative. So, it doesn't prove the impossibility of a meta-narrative. Maybe the narrative of disciplined free will can become a good meta-narrative. 2. Human knowledge by any measure is not complete as of now, so it is a little premature to conclude the non-existent of an acceptable meta-narrative. Though the question of if and when the humans can have a complete knowledge cannot be answered in advance, I think/hope that human curiosity, along with disciplined effort, will continue enhancing the human intellect and ability to grasp the most important questions of existence.
I must disagree with your first point. Saying there are no metanarratives is not itself a metanarrative, but rather a descriptive claim about metanarratives
@@MrTheo747 I agree though I am not well versed in such nuances of categorising statements. Consider this statement though - There is no meta-narrative describing modern world. Is this not a meta statement describing some aspect of the world?
Totally Agree, and for funny reason ...God may suddenly show up which is also possible. ps. We human better make it clear that Gods are just MIA not KIA.
Dear Alan, I enjoyed this talk. I wonder, though, if absence of worldview/postmodernism is the most useful way of labelling this situation. Isn't what you are describing an extension of what Walter Bagehot called the 'age of discussion' where everyone feels free to discuss human life from their standpoint and they no longer accept what the authorities say as holy writ? If that is right, then what seems like the absence of a worldview rather expresses a fairly well institutionalised way of looking at things -- liberalism. all the best, Huon
Dear Huon -(the Huon I know?) Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Yes, probably you are right, and interesting that when Bagehot was writing was another period of rapid global expansion and contested views… Alan P.S. If you enjoyed this, you might enjoy the book of which it is a partial summary - 'How do we know'. Another part of the book (the chapters before this one) is up on TH-cam (the first Goody lecture in Malta) as: 'The East and the West: reflections on China and Europe'
ayabaya Joseph Harder Hey brethren......I found our Lord and Savior......and he wasn't at the whorehouse this time! jezebel.com/this-dogs-butthole-literally-looks-like-jesus-513072075
When post- needing to eat, post-having to work, and post-capital accumulation in fewer and fewer hands would have arrived it will be a different world. Changes in the superstructure do not eliminate the need to explain the basis.
I totally enjoyed and benefitted from your lecture, which I believe, is multiculturally helpful, and encourages necessary tolerance among peoples of the world. It actually makes sense, and it challenges one to think analytically and logically. Thank you professor!
I Dont even know if you Alan will get to read my texts but i have listened to this video twice which upsets me so much i had to text again. Am i being paranoid but i saw another video of you teaching and i just wanted too see you at work. Hierarchy is out the window today. My Limits are very low but can learn quite a bit on internet if i want too because theres so much there. But id much rather read a book its weird but my mental illness slowed me down for over 20 years but its like waking up looking at a painting {the earth} with fresh eyes and seeing no modern world but just people who think it is XXX
Dear Christina, Thank you. It would be lovely if anything I write or film is useful for you. You might like to look at www.alanmacfarlane.com and especially may book 'Letters to Lily; On How the World Works'. Good luck... Alan
@@ayabaya Hi Prof Alan thank you so much for your reply and so soon its cheered me up for my day ahead. I will definately do as you say in your reply thanks again. Take Care lots of love Christina XXX
This sounds very much like the standard lament more common in the 90s and early 2000s. Sadly, I see it as more nostalgic than analytical. Take for example the fact that Macfarlane more or less equates postmodernity (a state of the world) with postmodernism (a set of vaguely connected ideas). Furthermore, he overstates the impenetrability and unintelligibility of "postmodern" writers. It may be true of a lot of po-mo neophytes, but the only one of the big names close to it would be Derrida. To say that Bourdieu is hard to understand is just sloppy; Bourdieu is someone one gives to first-year students to read and they manage it perfectly. But then again, we are listening to an aging British philosopher who never cared much for any thought coming from elsewhere.
To some extent I would disagree with the whole "being equal" illusion people assume technology give you. I think that it has to be "architected" to be used equally, but it won't make everyone equal, because as in all things, how you use it sets you apart. So a person who uses the internet for staring at cat pics will get a different reality than the person who uses it to connect different knowledges or as a larger source of information. That is to say, if the technology doesn't get made to do the problem solving (since it isn't "smart" technology, it only exist according to be programming), and if you don't use it as such, it won't be able to solve your problems for you. Also, I actually think reality has always been the same, but what we choose to focus on has changed; it has always changed and we are today just occupying ourselves with more information which reduces our "time" and makes us think more is going on; most of the information is not even necessary, thus giving the illusion that things have changed more rapidly. I also think we cannot generalize to say that the whole world is "post-mod"... especially if you have not experienced the worldview of modernism... how can you have the same "post-mod" reaction? Because yes, post-mod is a reaction to a previous world view, not a collapse of all world views. I think if you are using your brain, that will always systematize things, so even post-mod is definitely a world view, but it is trying to ignore itself.
basically all you can do is be aware, and as soon as you make conclusions you are making a system, and since post-modernism is a conclusion, it hasn't rid itself of the paradox of worldviews... and the other probably issue is that it is a search for absolute truth in a world of change, but it uses the means of change to achieve that "absolute" view... so I guess studies into paradox would help; i.e. how can paradox exist?
+Andjela Tatarovic I agree with your argument. Each person inevitably repeats the path of personal development coming through stages. We all are on different stages of development at all times. Some are getting stuck and stopped in their development. Others however develop quicker and reach the stages of development that are not avaialble to many. There is not equality in a true sense. We might be equal in terms of means available to us, but in all the other aspects we are certainly not. What to do with it depends on where you are and where you are going to, I would say.
hello! A year later, and a couple of days ago I watched "The Experimenter"... I think I would still agree with the equality statements we seem to be talking about, but I don't think "the system" (i.e. society or what have you) is empathy-free, so it is kind of all right that we are not equal! In the movie, there is a continuous sense of "six degrees of separation linking everything"... so once one person, in their individual situation goes about inputing energy into creating an idea/occupying themself with something, it seems to be picked up and carried along by degrees... I found the movie interesting in many respects, but especially to give me a more open mind towards "in"-equality as not necessarily "evil" :P (I am not applying it to forced inequality though or taking advantage of people)
Reality has changed fundamentally. The world has been made smaller via technology. Reality is not an object outside of the subject. Reality is the medium through which we make sense of the world. If a tree falls in the jungle and no one heard it, did it make a noise? Nope, it sent a stimuli, but until there's an ear to hear it, there is no noise. So reality is this man-made project of translating the world into something knowledge, making the world speak, to colonize via representation, definition, knowledge, etc. But at every iteration, we change what we call real. The world has never changed in its fundamental being, but reality changes all the time. Language changed reality. Writing changed reality. Technology, not so much the content, but the medium itself, changes reality. When you watch news on what's happening around the world, you don't feel as if what you're seeing is a visual representation of an event happening around the world, you feel as if you're seeing what is happening around the world. Of course you know better to confuse the map with the territory, but that still affects you. It changes your mapping of the world, hence it changes your reality. You reality changes everyday, it changes with the flow of information. Tomorrow a news headline will change your reality. It will expend it, or alter it, modify it, challenge it, correct it, update it, contract it, simplify it, etc. Because the real is that which is made to say something, reality is that which is communicated, or that which can be made to communicate.
when we produce a piece of technology, which "nature" (for lack of better "otherness" descriptor) has not up to for produced itself in the world, would you still say that that is an example of "wold change in its fundamental being"... not because we added new chemicals, but because by re-organizing existing ones, we created some states that were previously only potentialities... I didn't really know what your comment was replying to, but I do always wonder about the relationship between reality and fundamental essence/reality... so that's kind of what I thought you were questioning.
H iProf Alan Macfarlane i hope you read this but ill be honest as always. Im no brain box just an Artist. Im 52 this month. But i only discovered you through reading Naga Path. I saw your interview with Ursula i thought you very quiet in interview but i think i know why but i might be wrong. But anyway i have suffered with epilepsy slight psychosis most adult life recently got used to it but its as thou ive just woke up because of years of mental health. I said i wanted to see the modern world and realised its here already and all i saw was a Robot and a trip to Mars. We i agree are too fast. I agree with your opinion on Art also. People who should be noticed in this world today are not the wrong ones are in my opinion. Thanks for your video ill try some of your books i prefer older books than modern but im sure yours are fine take care XXX
I have the feeling that this man fails to explain that postmodernism is a descriptor instead of a philosophical system, so what all these theories try to do is point out problems in the modern world view instead of pointing in a general direction to follow. This omission makes it feel as if postmodernism is a grand contradictory chaotic system, when in fact it is trying to make us aware of the limitations that we have when we create or adopt our human culture.
But the story of humanity has always been one where we defied great odds to transcend our limitations. By default, limitations define what it means to be human. Thus, there's very little utility in simply pointing out limitations, especially when it's conveniently encapsulated in a "non-philosophy" that's conveniently absolved of a moral framework that would otherwise be the seed of a solution, however limited. It makes for a boring, stupid story at best.
Dear Alan, This was insightful, however in my opinion, not to scale. The core of a human being does not change, what we can observe are just external changes of social behaviour and entertainment. Post-modernism is just a tool providing people with arguments to pump ego and experience animalistic pleasures beyond any constraints. What we have to understand is that it does not have any real, long-term effects. Post-modernism is pure nihilism without any kind of goal other than destruction - ergo it can not breed anything lasting. Yet the world exists, and this is because there are more people doing what they love and what they believe in, than those driven by a will to contest. What happens after everything gets contested and there is nothing left to do? There are only two options - death or choosing some path, or more precisely a cross to bear. The only real change in human condition this myriad of pseudo-possibilities rooted in post-modernism led to, is prolonging the time needed to agree to bear the cross and move world forward. This change makes this act much more painful, yet less deluded and less prone to failure. Basically it takes us longer to mature, but since life expectations are steadily rising this might be a good thing. Jędrzej
29:16 "New ideas that shoot up into the sky, burst and dazzle for a few seconds, and then are gone." Hah. Sounds like something straight out of the kind of idealism that Marx made fun of/critiqued in the German Ideology. "As we hear from German ideologists, Germany has in the last few years gone through an unparalleled revolution. The decomposition of the Hegelian philosophy, which began with Strauss, has developed into a universal ferment into which all the “powers of the past” are swept. In the general chaos mighty empires have arisen only to meet with immediate doom, heroes have emerged momentarily only to be hurled back into obscurity by bolder and stronger rivals. It was a revolution beside which the French Revolution was child’s play, a world struggle beside which the struggles of the Diadochi [successors of Alexander the Great] appear insignificant. Principles ousted one another, heroes of the mind overthrew each other with unheard-of rapidity, and in the three years 1842-45 more of the past was swept away in Germany than at other times in three centuries. All this is supposed to have taken place in the realm of pure thought." -Marx While this was a very nice presentation, Macfarlane is very well spoken, clear, and elegant in his explanation of post-modernity, he simultaneously characterizes both Marxism and 'Science' incorrectly.
There should be acknowledgement between the ideas of postmodernism and its instrumentality by idealogues. That type of nuance is often glossed over by many critics and contributes to a lot of the strawmans you'll see of postmodernism. A lot of ethical claims are made about the theories and most of them are invalid. Like the claim that discourse is meaningless because words themselves have no intrinsic meaning attached to them. On the surface that ethical claim seems valid. But if you break it down and look at it with linguistic tools like semiotics, you'll quickly discover how unsound it is. Another critique of that claim, is that it performs the is/ought fallacy. Making value judgements about factual data constitutes a category error as defined by Hume. It's sloppy philosophy and contributes to a lot of invalid/unsound arguments. This is done on both sides of the postmodern argument. Like Derrida making value judgements on the usage of words because of the fact that the context of their use in language is arbitrary. It's not the validity or material condition of the language that's important to the ethical claim. It's the justification that's paramount. Communication is not meaningless because it's useful and it's one of the few effective tools we have. It doesn't have to be perfect or true to be of value. It only has to be useful and fulfill the conditions of survivability. One side effect of modernism is it's single minded search for the objective truth, which is great for science and other quantitative studies. However, that narrow view, is not always useful in qualitative studies. Human's do not perform actions based on discrete truth conditions or bayesian networks. They perform actions out of necessity and for survivability. Postmodernism is a shift in paradigm where materialism, although useful for many things, takes a back seat to idealism. From deduction to induction/adduction. From mostly objectivity to mostly subjectivity. It would do the reader/listener harm to think he only has the choice of one side or the other. When in reality each stance has its place and complement each other.
For some valuable insights on the question of Thomas Kuhn, and his theory of 'paradigm shift' read Kuhn vs. Popper, the Struggle for the Soul of Science by Steve Fuller (cup.columbia.edu/book/kuhn-vs-popper/9780231134286) 'Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions has sold over a million copies in more than twenty languages and has remained one of the ten most cited academic works for the past half century. In contrast, Karl Popper's seminal book The Logic of Scientific Discovery has lapsed into relative obscurity. Although the two men debated the nature of science only once, the legacy of this encounter has dominated intellectual and public discussions on the topic ever since.Almost universally recognized as the modern watershed in the philosophy of science, Kuhn's relativistic vision of shifting paradigms-which asserted that science was just another human activity, like art or philosophy, only more specialized-triumphed over Popper's more positivistic belief in science's revolutionary potential to falsify society's dogmas. But has this victory been beneficial for science? Steve Fuller argues that not only has Kuhn's dominance had an adverse impact on the field but both thinkers have been radically misinterpreted in the process. This debate raises a vital question: Can science remain an independent, progressive force in society, or is it destined to continue as the technical wing of the military-industrial complex? Drawing on original research-including the Kuhn archives at MIT-Fuller offers a clear account of "Kuhn vs. Popper" and what it will mean for the future of scientific inquiry.' StephenKMackSD
A very insightful lecture...I agree with Professor Macfalane, however if we are in the age of Post Modernity and all that his multi years of life and scholarly experience, if your are in the box, you are the box, you created the box...how do you honestly and objectively critic it.... most of these comments are (excuse my post modernity response...but then I am as old as Post Modernity is) OLD... and that is relevant. The world as we knew it is not the same...This is a 2022 comment. The world or the world of action and interaction has transformed...that has changed...we as people...humans Have not. So, do 7 trillion humans need a world view or are we truly at the point where we are individually whole with the intuitiveness to live in tune with this beautiful Green Blue Planet we are orbiting around the galaxy in we call her Earth. At no time in human history, except thru the imagination of the artist mind, have we been able to look at Earth from Outer Earth Space. We have no idea of what future People will say about what we are in the middle of...Post Modernity, we are in the process of creating our history, our future, or Iconic Age. Just saying....I Loved this lecture and I am doing it a couple of times I am sure I missed a few profound concepts along the way..yes, I love being able to contribute to the discussion.
Interesting how he skips over the market and capitalism, the driving force behind globalization, as irrelevant. Maybe because his interpretation is done with a Chinese audience in mind. In China capitalism is still raising living standards and bringing real prosperity to millions of people. (Yes, I know there are desperately poor people in China but far far fewer than there were before the CPC embraced capitalism. The economic transformation of China is actually quite incredible and unprecedented in history.) In the West (primarily Europe and North America, AU/NZ) the economy is moribund and capitalism is all about the top 0.1% squeezing every last shekel out of the ship before it breaks apart. The wider economy never recovered after the 2008 recession, the few jobs that have been created since are insecure and wages remain low. Debt is crippling the economic engine and central bankers' tunnel vision is making the problem worse. The former middle-class is rapidly collapsing and discontent and fear of an uncertain future is widespread. Graft and corruption is endemic. The 2016 US general election shows just how deep and blatant it is. Whatever your opinion of Trump, he is not nearly as corrupt as his opponent. This is a fact. That the American government and Western media refuse to publicly examine the evidence and hold the candidate to account is appalling in a society that considers itself "free and open" and a model for the world. But I digress. Despite the rot and mildew eating its way through the system, the economy is working very well for the extremely wealthy rentier class who "our" elected officials now represent. And there is most definitely an ideological framework behind Western sponsored global capitalism. This ideology is called different things by different people and at its core is the deification of a global "free" market. Basically it comes down to two things. The first is "the market is always right, profit is always good and government must not interfere with the market". This means farming out services that were provided by government to profit making businesses. Whether the service is better or worse is irrelevant because profit is always good. The "no government interference" part is bullshit and only applies to services that benefit the greater public. Government money (i.e. your tax dollars, Euros, Sterling, whatever) prop up and bail out banks and corporations all the time. The "free" market is free for the 0.1% because the people are covering their costs. They gamble, we provide the money. They win, they keep it all. They lose, we give them more money. It is a scam. Look at how much money is "donated" to candidates vying to be POTUS. Pay and play, baby. And the mass media outlets are in on it (and so desperate for click throughs they sold their souls to the devil). RIP free press. So, yes, there is an ideology underpinning our society. The second part of this ideology is globalization. This means the dissolution of the nation state which is replaced by a global market. Companies set up shop in China, Mexico, Eastern Europe and other places where wages are lower than in their home turf. This is okay because "profit is always good". (Never mind that the manufacturing jobs are not being replaced and large swathes of the population are being written off). Along with the free movement of capital (money) comes free movement of people. Western governments have been steadily ramping up immigration for years. And temporary foreign worker programs bring temporary (in theory but not always in practice) immigrants to the West who work for lower wages than local workers and this drives wages down across the board. People who have always lived in that country and long-term immigrants who made their home there are obviously not happy with this (on top of all the other stuff going on) and resentment is high. There is much more to say about ideology and the modern day West but this is TH-cam where tl;dr is a way of life. But my point is that this guy, Alan Macfarlane, makes a critique of the modern world, which is still dominated by the West, yet leaves out the ideology that props it up. He makes the preposterous claim that capitalism is no longer a relevant force in today's world. What world is he living in? No mention of the left's obsession with identity politics and limiting free speech to what its adherents want to hear. It is helping to tear apart the fabric of Western society so it's kind of a big gap he's left open. No mention of the ongoing economic crisis, the proxy wars being fought in Syria and Iraq, the bellicose rhetoric that is reviving the spectre of nuclear war or the rise of the new right as the main opposition to globalization after the left gave up and joined the globalists as useful idiots. Granted this was uploaded in 2014 but these changes started before then. He does make some excellent points about alienation and lack of tradition and the fragmented nature of a society without religion (he doesn't mention it specifically though) or even a political tradition to believe in but by leaving out the dominant ideology his analysis remains incomplete. Political ideology is not like it was in the past when governments promoted capitalism and the good life and compared this with the drab repression of the communist USSR...but he's foolish if he thinks ideologies have simply evaporated. No, they have changed shape and become globalized but they, or rather, it, is very much alive.
wow, this is deep, deep pessimism. yes, he gives a minute to the positive side, but the sneer when he said "dazzle for a few seconds" was palpable. what advice is he giving his grandkids?; that might be worth hearing.
This is a postmodernist abstraction that is fronting as nihilism. Nihilism naturally develops when a weak and baseless faith in a view or belief is significantly challenged. Since there is nothing to fill the holes in their views or belief, when they're broken, it becomes apparent to them that there is nothing left or nothing of value, no structure, no shape, nothing; whereas the actual postmodernism views and beliefs are more so shrouded as if our views are all in the "fog of war." I am thinking, I am sentient, conscious. That is the most obvious thing that came from the "enlightenment." Which in itself is a joke, considering how obvious it is... or maybe it isn't so obvious that other people cannot put this common sense view together themselves. Hobbes said, that people can become trapped by books, as if a bird stuck in a chimney, and the "literati" absolutely squandered their ability to produce a reasonable "view" via trying to trap people into pages and pages of obfuscated crap; where every once in awhile something triggers the common sense feeling; as if one already knew, they just needed to read it. So, it's no wonder that B.Russell and crew failed entirely in reproducing the crap they consumed and released. Even the Bible was put together better, whereas each part of it, is significant to the narrative. So, ya, yaw failed majorly. The world view hasn't changed for thousands of years, and that is common sense. If you educate yourself in the mysteries of nature, logic, and math. Then you realize what game is actually being played here. And, it's not a pretty game, evolution gets messy, and there is alot of garbage that accumulates during this game. Hobbes put it eloquently nasty, brutish, and short. And, the problem with a world view like MacFarlane's enlightenment values, is that all these things he espouses as enlightenment values, are actually negative values; as in, meant to destroy things. Reason has to be a logical premise, derived from self understanding, and NOT DOGMATIC WORLD VIEWS. Dogmatic group views are almost always destructive in some way, because there is nothing checking if said beliefs are within reason or not. So, then these dogmatic beliefs become tools for the Orwellian power brokers to wage whatever kind of war they desire. Abstraction through postmodernism, deletes said dogmatism and replaces it with 2 options; either become a self-understanding and rational person who is making their own reasonable decisions with like-minded people, or dwell in the abstract kind of hell that postmodernism has created. That is the sacred/profane duality right there, set on the table, because it's what all of you ilterai type folks deserve. You folks find comfort in top down dogmatism, so enjoy your plate full of nihilism that they've prepared specifically your type.
I would argue post-enlightenment is a fallacy. We are striving at CERN to discover the fundamental patterns and building blocks behind matter - the Higgs Boson just made world news - yet it has no useful value other than to help take us from ignorance to further enlightenment. This talk here is very gloomy and doesn't reflect the joys many people have bringing up families and sharing good times with our loved ones. This is and will continue to be a constant. We are not in a post scientific world for science is; fequently; of it's own nature counter intuitive - after all the universe exists in it's extent beyond our mere comprehension of it; it's not just springing forth from within the human mind - hence the fall of philosophy. The joy is that we are all questioning and sharing ideas with more cultures than ever before known to major western life - we are in a human renaissance sharing more widespread variety. It is another dawning of a richness in human experience - culture, language and values hitherto isolated by geographic borders. We will see a new world much grander than anything our imagination can yet picture. The artist arguing that 'the shrine is empty' is just making an excuse for a lack of self-discipline and vision. That's the great thing about returning to nature from whence we come and still must be part of - you can fool people but not nature; her character is not open to opinion - she will be who she is. This too is another constant. Evolution will continue and I believe we will make the planet more comfortable for us all as we realise the effects we have on one another in so many different ways on a more global scale.
How can we "make the planet more comfortable for all of us" as we pollute our nest with ever increasing fervor? We are reaping finally and fully the harvest of our unconscious fear of our mortality. While the west continues to consume worthless junk at ever increasing speed to distract ourselves from our true state of moral and emotional emptiness the have nots strive to make the same mistakes that the haves have made to foul the human nest. Antinatalism as a solution will never gain acceptance and so we continue on towards our final extinction or another very dark age where we reestablish our ignorance and create all the worthless gods once again.
the point is that those things can mean any number of things. The situation is not gloomy, it can be seen as gloomy, joyful, infuriating, misterious etc. You criticise, and are correct, but your arguments can also be refuted easily, the point is not that you are wrong, the point is more like "who has the authority to say you´re right?"
Science has undergone a major shift with Quantum physics which has instantiated probability over determinism. This form of thought, as descriptive perception, has gradually been overtaking all forms of life and states of affairs. Adorno pointed out that as our understanding of capitalism as sheer fate without comprehension, our lives become more irrational.
It is the creation of a generation of the young and inexperienced who do not, will not, cannot realize that those living, those that are 20-30 years their senior, have been right where they are before, and who lash out at them with titles like "boomer". How do they not realize that they will quickly become the next spitefully labelled cohort before they know it? Is this the age of spending such little time to master anything and yet rising up to challenge those who have done so? Being bereft of any skill set or knowledge base/know-how, whatsoever, and expecting, without a doubt, that they will emerge triumphant? Could they lose horribly, but instead of picking up the pieces, lesson(s) learned, and heading back to the training ground, will they stand arrogantly, with less to fight with in the second, third, and fourth, or more, rounds.
The presenter paints, I believe, a clear vision of the total lack of a clear vision. Most interestingly though, the consequences he briefly mentions do not include anything about suffering - other than, perhaps, the personal suffering of being intellectually ungrounded, in a permanent state of statelessness - an affliction of the privileged and affluent? Perhaps, but then it's the privileged and affluent that, arguably, act in ways that yield most of the suffering - so we might want to be concerned about their (our) psychological health. Missing for me are the biological imperatives; in a world of infinite ideas and opinions and causes and worldviews, suffering in various forms is common. Whoever you are, whatever your worldview, your finger will withdrawal from a flame (pathologies aside) and you will reach for water when thirsty, etc., and you will suffer if there is interference. Of all of the -ism's, it seems to me that organism is one worth focusing upon, the scope of which can include individuals, communities and biospheres.
Rather bad and underdeveloped understanding of almost all theories. Postcolonialism is written without the dash to trouble the rigid periodization you suggest, Stalinism has little to do with Marxism and more with capitalism etc. You are old and don't have time enough left to read, which is a shame.
Produces a whole video expositing the themes of post modernism and then attacks all the authors who expound these contours of post modernism - and why - because he is getting a check from china and he doesnt want them to feel dumb because they cant understand these texts - thereby he manages to undermine the entire video through his performative actions - a literal kowtow to capital, nationalism, and new meta-narratives of China's rise - all capped off by a listing of existential thematics straight out of heidegger and sartre (i thought we were past that metanarrative bra) - hilarious.... My summary - computers exist, gatekeepers gone, and marx was still right Edit- I teach at University and i find after many years that the capacity of my chinese exchange students to think critically and abstractly correlates directly with how "westernized" that student is... The text reads itself through the individual approaching it and as nietzsche would point out - the national character of those individuals has been inhibited by 2,300 years of confucian deferral of independence and thought.... There is a reason the whole chinese economy of rmb is monopoly money and they are a debt burdened, shadow banking, and submissive police-state society - or truth isnt real?
Thank you Professor. Your lecture is a model what a good lecture must be like.
In my opinion, this is very insightful and full to the brim with overstatements.
Beautiful, thank you so much professor Macfarlane
Great video.
I agree there are many things both beautiful and horrifying about the postmodern world. Like you described, it's a mist in which creativity flourishes and individuals pursue knowledge at their own pace, to their heart's content. It's an era for artists and a limbo for critics. But people are not just artists; they also hold opinions, and in a world where everyone's opinion is in some sense valid (and therefore equally invalid) conflicts which must be resolved, cannot be resolved through reason. If worst happens, even simple disagreements may only be solvable through violence/coercion. I believe that, if individuals or a society in general (to describe it postmodernly) developed some system to moderate conflicts, which neither resorted to violence or mobocracy, that would, I feel, be the first step to starting knowledge anew and fresh (or rather, establish some communication between individuals and provide a framework for debate, which in turn would build up consensus). It would give us footing, however slightly. But what form that compromise would take I have no clue.
It seems to me this idea of “post” modernity is just more modernity: Modernity continuing the project of “disenchanting” the world by finally disenchanting itself. Science, mathematics, reason, etc. were “enchanted” once... seen as paths to a kind of ultimate, universal, transcendent truth. Now they’re just tools.
Changing terminology doesn't change the referent phenomena. What we see in postmodernism has happened before. The Greeks experienced the same thing with their skeptics who arose following their Golden Age. The same phenomenon reappeared in the wake of the Renaissance, Reformation, and 30 Years War, with the resulting widespread despair felt toward belief systems and existing authority structures. This is how the western world ended up with Renee Descartes, the Age of Enlightenment, and Rationalism that persists in the modern age. The same occurred with philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and the Existentialists. In each instance, deep skepticism (not to mention deep pessimism) toward existing paradigms resulted in their rejection, and sometimes their eventual overthrow. Each iteration of this phenomenon overlapped in time with some major, accepted paradigm even before its overthrow. Sometimes it continued along with a given paradigm without ever overthrowing it. We still hear people praising Platonism and describing all other philosophy as the mere footnotes to Plato despite the facts that Skeptics took over Plato's Academy. We still have people who believe in God despite a number of Enlightenment thinkers who openly dismiss the metaphysics necessary to theism.
Postmodernism is no different. It rejects meta-narratives out of the same skepticism - i.e., the same profound doubt, suspicion, and rejection of existing paradigms of knowledge and power that characterized previous instances of this phenomenon. Yet, modernism and rationalism continue concurrently, for the time being. We still have nations, scientists, scholars, and theists who continue unabated.
Men need to understand themselves and their environment to find meaning, and they create structures or paradigms to meet this need. This is why new paradigms arise, Phoenix like, from the ashes of all previously failed paradigms. Man has the genius to create new structures and paradigms because of this need. This is why one should predict that Postmodernism, as yet one more iteration of skepticism, will eventually pass. It may result in a new world view, but some world view, old or new, will arise and persist.
Brilliant commentary
Wow. Long but really concise!
Enjoyed this very much. Four years old but acts as a great introduction to our current condition and Dr Macfarlane has a great mind and depth. Metamodernism comes after post-modernism, apparently, and may provide some of the tools and a framework for addressing the fragmentation and dispersion of the hyper-world we inhabit.
Although is clear that we have the theoretically standpoint of a post-structuralism society and its heterogenous nature, but by any means we are not there yet. There is a strong resistance from current authorities and systems to achieve that plurality. A post-modernist society implies a society that abandons their tendency of their ideology to prevail, instead ideologies will become micro-narratives and coexist to each other, forming a rhizome pattern of progression. Great Introduction.
I normally pride myself on an ability to remain emotionally unmoved by the presentation of facts about our world. I struggled to retain my usual stoicism in considering some of the information contained in this lecture. Moreover, I felt a rising panic at the thought of the disintegration of our old mode of being into the chaotic unknown beyond modernity. It seems the internet must necessarily come at a cost - in exchange for the equal access to information and influence over our culture the internet provides, we must simultaneously undermine the power of the institutions which once granted us a sense of security on a societal level. The ship of our species is no longer headed by the wisdom of a captain or navigator. We drift in the direction which appeals to the majority power within our culture. But without the continual influence of an authority structure, we never gain momentum in any direction and only bounce back and forth like a bobber on the water's surface suddenly jerked here and there by the nibble of innumerable fish beneath the surface.
A life of intellectual investigation leads to realisation of the chaos, and not of an ordering and resolution.
Just look at Nietzsche
Professor Alan is presenting an interpretation of the current western paradigm of knowledge. He seems concerned that there is no unifying meta-narrative across humans. I have two points of disagreement:
1. The belief in the lack of a meta-narrative is in itself a meta-narrative. So, it doesn't prove the impossibility of a meta-narrative. Maybe the narrative of disciplined free will can become a good meta-narrative.
2. Human knowledge by any measure is not complete as of now, so it is a little premature to conclude the non-existent of an acceptable meta-narrative. Though the question of if and when the humans can have a complete knowledge cannot be answered in advance, I think/hope that human curiosity, along with disciplined effort, will continue enhancing the human intellect and ability to grasp the most important questions of existence.
I must disagree with your first point. Saying there are no metanarratives is not itself a metanarrative, but rather a descriptive claim about metanarratives
@@MrTheo747 I agree though I am not well versed in such nuances of categorising statements. Consider this statement though - There is no meta-narrative describing modern world. Is this not a meta statement describing some aspect of the world?
Totally Agree, and for funny reason ...God may suddenly show up which is also possible.
ps. We human better make it clear that Gods are just MIA not KIA.
Dear Alan,
I enjoyed this talk. I wonder, though, if absence of worldview/postmodernism is the most useful way of labelling this situation. Isn't what you are describing an extension of what Walter Bagehot called the 'age of discussion' where everyone feels free to discuss human life from their standpoint and they no longer accept what the authorities say as holy writ? If that is right, then what seems like the absence of a worldview rather expresses a fairly well institutionalised way of looking at things -- liberalism.
all the best, Huon
Dear Huon -(the Huon I know?) Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Yes, probably you are right, and interesting that when Bagehot was writing was another period of rapid global expansion and contested views… Alan
P.S. If you enjoyed this, you might enjoy the book of which it is a partial summary - 'How do we know'. Another part of the book (the chapters before this one) is up on TH-cam (the first Goody lecture in Malta) as: 'The East and the West: reflections on China and Europe'
ayabaya Joseph Harder Hey brethren......I found our Lord and Savior......and he wasn't at the whorehouse this time!
jezebel.com/this-dogs-butthole-literally-looks-like-jesus-513072075
@@ayabayalike
When post- needing to eat, post-having to work, and post-capital accumulation in fewer and fewer hands would have arrived it will be a different world. Changes in the superstructure do not eliminate the need to explain the basis.
Thank you so much professor
Good work man; God bless you
I totally enjoyed and benefitted from your lecture, which I believe, is multiculturally helpful, and encourages necessary tolerance among peoples of the world. It actually makes sense, and it challenges one to think analytically and logically. Thank you professor!
I Dont even know if you Alan will get to read my texts but i have listened to this video twice which upsets me so much i had to text again. Am i being paranoid but i saw another video of you teaching and i just wanted too see you at work. Hierarchy is out the window today. My Limits are very low but can learn quite a bit on internet if i want too because theres so much there. But id much rather read a book its weird but my mental illness slowed me down for over 20 years but its like waking up looking at a painting {the earth} with fresh eyes and seeing no modern world but just people who think it is XXX
Dear Christina, Thank you. It would be lovely if anything I write or film is useful for you. You might like to look at www.alanmacfarlane.com and especially may book 'Letters to Lily; On How the World Works'. Good luck... Alan
@@ayabaya Hi Prof Alan thank you so much for your reply and so soon its cheered me up for my day ahead. I will definately do as you say in your reply thanks again. Take Care lots of love Christina XXX
@@ayabaya Thank you again Prof Alan i have ordered Letters to Lily, today really look forward to reading thank you. XXX
very brilliant talk. Kept me here for entire length...with no use of fb, twittey and all the others:-)
End of a ruling literati. A world of customers. There is no author...
Very succinct presentation. Thank you.
This sounds very much like the standard lament more common in the 90s and early 2000s. Sadly, I see it as more nostalgic than analytical. Take for example the fact that Macfarlane more or less equates postmodernity (a state of the world) with postmodernism (a set of vaguely connected ideas). Furthermore, he overstates the impenetrability and unintelligibility of "postmodern" writers. It may be true of a lot of po-mo neophytes, but the only one of the big names close to it would be Derrida. To say that Bourdieu is hard to understand is just sloppy; Bourdieu is someone one gives to first-year students to read and they manage it perfectly. But then again, we are listening to an aging British philosopher who never cared much for any thought coming from elsewhere.
Excellent!
*that history huh, it just keeps ending. im post-post. i call it negation theory.* gr8 lecture.
To some extent I would disagree with the whole "being equal" illusion people assume technology give you. I think that it has to be "architected" to be used equally, but it won't make everyone equal, because as in all things, how you use it sets you apart. So a person who uses the internet for staring at cat pics will get a different reality than the person who uses it to connect different knowledges or as a larger source of information. That is to say, if the technology doesn't get made to do the problem solving (since it isn't "smart" technology, it only exist according to be programming), and if you don't use it as such, it won't be able to solve your problems for you. Also, I actually think reality has always been the same, but what we choose to focus on has changed; it has always changed and we are today just occupying ourselves with more information which reduces our "time" and makes us think more is going on; most of the information is not even necessary, thus giving the illusion that things have changed more rapidly. I also think we cannot generalize to say that the whole world is "post-mod"... especially if you have not experienced the worldview of modernism... how can you have the same "post-mod" reaction? Because yes, post-mod is a reaction to a previous world view, not a collapse of all world views. I think if you are using your brain, that will always systematize things, so even post-mod is definitely a world view, but it is trying to ignore itself.
basically all you can do is be aware, and as soon as you make conclusions you are making a system, and since post-modernism is a conclusion, it hasn't rid itself of the paradox of worldviews... and the other probably issue is that it is a search for absolute truth in a world of change, but it uses the means of change to achieve that "absolute" view... so I guess studies into paradox would help; i.e. how can paradox exist?
+Andjela Tatarovic I agree with your argument. Each person inevitably repeats the path of personal development coming through stages. We all are on different stages of development at all times. Some are getting stuck and stopped in their development. Others however develop quicker and reach the stages of development that are not avaialble to many. There is not equality in a true sense. We might be equal in terms of means available to us, but in all the other aspects we are certainly not. What to do with it depends on where you are and where you are going to, I would say.
hello! A year later, and a couple of days ago I watched "The Experimenter"... I think I would still agree with the equality statements we seem to be talking about, but I don't think "the system" (i.e. society or what have you) is empathy-free, so it is kind of all right that we are not equal! In the movie, there is a continuous sense of "six degrees of separation linking everything"... so once one person, in their individual situation goes about inputing energy into creating an idea/occupying themself with something, it seems to be picked up and carried along by degrees... I found the movie interesting in many respects, but especially to give me a more open mind towards "in"-equality as not necessarily "evil" :P (I am not applying it to forced inequality though or taking advantage of people)
Reality has changed fundamentally. The world has been made smaller via technology. Reality is not an object outside of the subject. Reality is the medium through which we make sense of the world. If a tree falls in the jungle and no one heard it, did it make a noise? Nope, it sent a stimuli, but until there's an ear to hear it, there is no noise. So reality is this man-made project of translating the world into something knowledge, making the world speak, to colonize via representation, definition, knowledge, etc.
But at every iteration, we change what we call real. The world has never changed in its fundamental being, but reality changes all the time. Language changed reality. Writing changed reality. Technology, not so much the content, but the medium itself, changes reality.
When you watch news on what's happening around the world, you don't feel as if what you're seeing is a visual representation of an event happening around the world, you feel as if you're seeing what is happening around the world. Of course you know better to confuse the map with the territory, but that still affects you. It changes your mapping of the world, hence it changes your reality. You reality changes everyday, it changes with the flow of information.
Tomorrow a news headline will change your reality. It will expend it, or alter it, modify it, challenge it, correct it, update it, contract it, simplify it, etc. Because the real is that which is made to say something, reality is that which is communicated, or that which can be made to communicate.
when we produce a piece of technology, which "nature" (for lack of better "otherness" descriptor) has not up to for produced itself in the world, would you still say that that is an example of "wold change in its fundamental being"... not because we added new chemicals, but because by re-organizing existing ones, we created some states that were previously only potentialities...
I didn't really know what your comment was replying to, but I do always wonder about the relationship between reality and fundamental essence/reality... so that's kind of what I thought you were questioning.
H iProf Alan Macfarlane i hope you read this but ill be honest as always. Im no brain box just an Artist. Im 52 this month. But i only discovered you through reading Naga Path. I saw your interview with Ursula i thought you very quiet in interview but i think i know why but i might be wrong. But anyway i have suffered with epilepsy slight psychosis most adult life recently got used to it but its as thou ive just woke up because of years of mental health. I said i wanted to see the modern world and realised its here already and all i saw was a Robot and a trip to Mars. We i agree are too fast. I agree with your opinion on Art also. People who should be noticed in this world today are not the wrong ones are in my opinion. Thanks for your video ill try some of your books i prefer older books than modern but im sure yours are fine take care XXX
Very lucid exposition on post modern thought
@10:01 ...Books may not beep but do they not Speak, are they not crammed/pressed together with Words?
Great talk buddy! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I have the feeling that this man fails to explain that postmodernism is a descriptor instead of a philosophical system, so what all these theories try to do is point out problems in the modern world view instead of pointing in a general direction to follow.
This omission makes it feel as if postmodernism is a grand contradictory chaotic system, when in fact it is trying to make us aware of the limitations that we have when we create or adopt our human culture.
But the story of humanity has always been one where we defied great odds to transcend our limitations. By default, limitations define what it means to be human. Thus, there's very little utility in simply pointing out limitations, especially when it's conveniently encapsulated in a "non-philosophy" that's conveniently absolved of a moral framework that would otherwise be the seed of a solution, however limited. It makes for a boring, stupid story at best.
thanks much for your videos
Hmm. A couple of trends remain: the hollowing of the middle of the income distribution (much of it upwards), and planetary ecological catastrophe.
Indeed.
ps. Don't forget "What is a woman"
This is the time of the tower of Babel
Dear Alan,
This was insightful, however in my opinion, not to scale.
The core of a human being does not change, what we can observe are just external changes of social behaviour and entertainment. Post-modernism is just a tool providing people with arguments to pump ego and experience animalistic pleasures beyond any constraints.
What we have to understand is that it does not have any real, long-term effects. Post-modernism is pure nihilism without any kind of goal other than destruction - ergo it can not breed anything lasting. Yet the world exists, and this is because there are more people doing what they love and what they believe in, than those driven by a will to contest.
What happens after everything gets contested and there is nothing left to do? There are only two options - death or choosing some path, or more precisely a cross to bear. The only real change in human condition this myriad of pseudo-possibilities rooted in post-modernism led to, is prolonging the time needed to agree to bear the cross and move world forward. This change makes this act much more painful, yet less deluded and less prone to failure.
Basically it takes us longer to mature, but since life expectations are steadily rising this might be a good thing.
Jędrzej
29:16
"New ideas that shoot up into the sky, burst and dazzle for a few seconds, and then are gone."
Hah. Sounds like something straight out of the kind of idealism that Marx made fun of/critiqued in the German Ideology.
"As we hear from German ideologists, Germany has in the last few years gone through an unparalleled revolution. The decomposition of the Hegelian philosophy, which began with Strauss, has developed into a universal ferment into which all the “powers of the past” are swept. In the general chaos mighty empires have arisen only to meet with immediate doom, heroes have emerged momentarily only to be hurled back into obscurity by bolder and stronger rivals. It was a revolution beside which the French Revolution was child’s play, a world struggle beside which the struggles of the Diadochi [successors of Alexander the Great] appear insignificant. Principles ousted one another, heroes of the mind overthrew each other with unheard-of rapidity, and in the three years 1842-45 more of the past was swept away in Germany than at other times in three centuries.
All this is supposed to have taken place in the realm of pure thought."
-Marx
While this was a very nice presentation, Macfarlane is very well spoken, clear, and elegant in his explanation of post-modernity, he simultaneously characterizes both Marxism and 'Science' incorrectly.
What comes after post... Starting over!
There should be acknowledgement between the ideas of postmodernism and its instrumentality by idealogues. That type of nuance is often glossed over by many critics and contributes to a lot of the strawmans you'll see of postmodernism.
A lot of ethical claims are made about the theories and most of them are invalid. Like the claim that discourse is meaningless because words themselves have no intrinsic meaning attached to them. On the surface that ethical claim seems valid. But if you break it down and look at it with linguistic tools like semiotics, you'll quickly discover how unsound it is. Another critique of that claim, is that it performs the is/ought fallacy. Making value judgements about factual data constitutes a category error as defined by Hume. It's sloppy philosophy and contributes to a lot of invalid/unsound arguments.
This is done on both sides of the postmodern argument. Like Derrida making value judgements on the usage of words because of the fact that the context of their use in language is arbitrary. It's not the validity or material condition of the language that's important to the ethical claim. It's the justification that's paramount. Communication is not meaningless because it's useful and it's one of the few effective tools we have. It doesn't have to be perfect or true to be of value. It only has to be useful and fulfill the conditions of survivability.
One side effect of modernism is it's single minded search for the objective truth, which is great for science and other quantitative studies. However, that narrow view, is not always useful in qualitative studies. Human's do not perform actions based on discrete truth conditions or bayesian networks. They perform actions out of necessity and for survivability. Postmodernism is a shift in paradigm where materialism, although useful for many things, takes a back seat to idealism. From deduction to induction/adduction. From mostly objectivity to mostly subjectivity. It would do the reader/listener harm to think he only has the choice of one side or the other. When in reality each stance has its place and complement each other.
Is we step outside of postmodernity, and view it discreetly, then we will observe a coalescing meta-narrative.
For some valuable insights on the question of Thomas Kuhn, and his theory of 'paradigm shift' read Kuhn vs. Popper, the Struggle for the Soul of Science by Steve Fuller
(cup.columbia.edu/book/kuhn-vs-popper/9780231134286)
'Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
has sold over a million copies in more than twenty languages and has
remained one of the ten most cited academic works for the past half
century. In contrast, Karl Popper's seminal book The Logic of Scientific Discovery
has lapsed into relative obscurity. Although the two men debated the
nature of science only once, the legacy of this encounter has dominated
intellectual and public discussions on the topic ever since.Almost
universally recognized as the modern watershed in the philosophy of
science, Kuhn's relativistic vision of shifting paradigms-which asserted
that science was just another human activity, like art or philosophy,
only more specialized-triumphed over Popper's more positivistic belief
in science's revolutionary potential to falsify society's dogmas. But
has this victory been beneficial for science? Steve Fuller argues that
not only has Kuhn's dominance had an adverse impact on the field but
both thinkers have been radically misinterpreted in the process. This
debate raises a vital question: Can science remain an independent,
progressive force in society, or is it destined to continue as the
technical wing of the military-industrial complex? Drawing on original
research-including the Kuhn archives at MIT-Fuller offers a clear
account of "Kuhn vs. Popper" and what it will mean for the future of
scientific inquiry.'
StephenKMackSD
Is that Jackie the jokeman's British brother?
A very insightful lecture...I agree with Professor Macfalane, however if we are in the age of Post Modernity and all that his multi years of life and scholarly experience, if your are in the box, you are the box, you created the box...how do you honestly and objectively critic it.... most of these comments are (excuse my post modernity response...but then I am as old as Post Modernity is) OLD... and that is relevant.
The world as we knew it is not the same...This is a 2022 comment. The world or the world of action and interaction has transformed...that has changed...we as people...humans Have not.
So, do 7 trillion humans need a world view or are we truly at the point where we are individually whole with the intuitiveness to live in tune with this beautiful Green Blue Planet we are orbiting around the galaxy in we call her Earth. At no time in human history, except thru the imagination of the artist mind, have we been able to look at Earth from Outer Earth Space. We have no idea of what future People will say about what we are in the middle of...Post Modernity, we are in the process of creating our history, our future, or Iconic Age.
Just saying....I Loved this lecture and I am doing it a couple of times I am sure I missed a few profound concepts along the way..yes, I love being able to contribute to the discussion.
It's 8 billion, now. The issue with postmodernity is 'power struggle.'
The enlightenment itself claimed, in most cases, to be post-religious.
Interesting how he skips over the market and capitalism, the driving force behind globalization, as irrelevant. Maybe because his interpretation is done with a Chinese audience in mind. In China capitalism is still raising living standards and bringing real prosperity to millions of people. (Yes, I know there are desperately poor people in China but far far fewer than there were before the CPC embraced capitalism. The economic transformation of China is actually quite incredible and unprecedented in history.)
In the West (primarily Europe and North America, AU/NZ) the economy is moribund and capitalism is all about the top 0.1% squeezing every last shekel out of the ship before it breaks apart. The wider economy never recovered after the 2008 recession, the few jobs that have been created since are insecure and wages remain low. Debt is crippling the economic engine and central bankers' tunnel vision is making the problem worse.
The former middle-class is rapidly collapsing and discontent and fear of an uncertain future is widespread. Graft and corruption is endemic. The 2016 US general election shows just how deep and blatant it is. Whatever your opinion of Trump, he is not nearly as corrupt as his opponent. This is a fact. That the American government and Western media refuse to publicly examine the evidence and hold the candidate to account is appalling in a society that considers itself "free and open" and a model for the world. But I digress.
Despite the rot and mildew eating its way through the system, the economy is working very well for the extremely wealthy rentier class who "our" elected officials now represent. And there is most definitely an ideological framework behind Western sponsored global capitalism.
This ideology is called different things by different people and at its core is the deification of a global "free" market. Basically it comes down to two things. The first is "the market is always right, profit is always good and government must not interfere with the market". This means farming out services that were provided by government to profit making businesses. Whether the service is better or worse is irrelevant because profit is always good. The "no government interference" part is bullshit and only applies to services that benefit the greater public.
Government money (i.e. your tax dollars, Euros, Sterling, whatever) prop up and bail out banks and corporations all the time. The "free" market is free for the 0.1% because the people are covering their costs. They gamble, we provide the money. They win, they keep it all. They lose, we give them more money. It is a scam. Look at how much money is "donated" to candidates vying to be POTUS. Pay and play, baby. And the mass media outlets are in on it (and so desperate for click throughs they sold their souls to the devil). RIP free press. So, yes, there is an ideology underpinning our society.
The second part of this ideology is globalization. This means the dissolution of the nation state which is replaced by a global market. Companies set up shop in China, Mexico, Eastern Europe and other places where wages are lower than in their home turf. This is okay because "profit is always good". (Never mind that the manufacturing jobs are not being replaced and large swathes of the population are being written off).
Along with the free movement of capital (money) comes free movement of people. Western governments have been steadily ramping up immigration for years. And temporary foreign worker programs bring temporary (in theory but not always in practice) immigrants to the West who work for lower wages than local workers and this drives wages down across the board. People who have always lived in that country and long-term immigrants who made their home there are obviously not happy with this (on top of all the other stuff going on) and resentment is high.
There is much more to say about ideology and the modern day West but this is TH-cam where tl;dr is a way of life. But my point is that this guy, Alan Macfarlane, makes a critique of the modern world, which is still dominated by the West, yet leaves out the ideology that props it up. He makes the preposterous claim that capitalism is no longer a relevant force in today's world. What world is he living in? No mention of the left's obsession with identity politics and limiting free speech to what its adherents want to hear. It is helping to tear apart the fabric of Western society so it's kind of a big gap he's left open. No mention of the ongoing economic crisis, the proxy wars being fought in Syria and Iraq, the bellicose rhetoric that is reviving the spectre of nuclear war or the rise of the new right as the main opposition to globalization after the left gave up and joined the globalists as useful idiots. Granted this was uploaded in 2014 but these changes started before then.
He does make some excellent points about alienation and lack of tradition and the fragmented nature of a society without religion (he doesn't mention it specifically though) or even a political tradition to believe in but by leaving out the dominant ideology his analysis remains incomplete. Political ideology is not like it was in the past when governments promoted capitalism and the good life and compared this with the drab repression of the communist USSR...but he's foolish if he thinks ideologies have simply evaporated. No, they have changed shape and become globalized but they, or rather, it, is very much alive.
basstrip73 well thought out and articulate response. Murray Bookchin would be proud lol
wow, this is deep, deep pessimism. yes, he gives a minute to the positive side, but the sneer when he said "dazzle for a few seconds" was palpable.
what advice is he giving his grandkids?; that might be worth hearing.
we definitely do not live in post-nationalist world, but wouldn't that be cool
But we do live in a world where nationalism is seen by many as a bad thing, and by many others as irrelevant.
This is a postmodernist abstraction that is fronting as nihilism. Nihilism naturally develops when a weak and baseless faith in a view or belief is significantly challenged. Since there is nothing to fill the holes in their views or belief, when they're broken, it becomes apparent to them that there is nothing left or nothing of value, no structure, no shape, nothing; whereas the actual postmodernism views and beliefs are more so shrouded as if our views are all in the "fog of war."
I am thinking, I am sentient, conscious. That is the most obvious thing that came from the "enlightenment." Which in itself is a joke, considering how obvious it is... or maybe it isn't so obvious that other people cannot put this common sense view together themselves. Hobbes said, that people can become trapped by books, as if a bird stuck in a chimney, and the "literati" absolutely squandered their ability to produce a reasonable "view" via trying to trap people into pages and pages of obfuscated crap; where every once in awhile something triggers the common sense feeling; as if one already knew, they just needed to read it. So, it's no wonder that B.Russell and crew failed entirely in reproducing the crap they consumed and released. Even the Bible was put together better, whereas each part of it, is significant to the narrative. So, ya, yaw failed majorly.
The world view hasn't changed for thousands of years, and that is common sense. If you educate yourself in the mysteries of nature, logic, and math. Then you realize what game is actually being played here. And, it's not a pretty game, evolution gets messy, and there is alot of garbage that accumulates during this game. Hobbes put it eloquently nasty, brutish, and short. And, the problem with a world view like MacFarlane's enlightenment values, is that all these things he espouses as enlightenment values, are actually negative values; as in, meant to destroy things. Reason has to be a logical premise, derived from self understanding, and NOT DOGMATIC WORLD VIEWS. Dogmatic group views are almost always destructive in some way, because there is nothing checking if said beliefs are within reason or not. So, then these dogmatic beliefs become tools for the Orwellian power brokers to wage whatever kind of war they desire. Abstraction through postmodernism, deletes said dogmatism and replaces it with 2 options; either become a self-understanding and rational person who is making their own reasonable decisions with like-minded people, or dwell in the abstract kind of hell that postmodernism has created. That is the sacred/profane duality right there, set on the table, because it's what all of you ilterai type folks deserve. You folks find comfort in top down dogmatism, so enjoy your plate full of nihilism that they've prepared specifically your type.
Jesus. I like it.
It seems that there is no room in your introduction about the Israel Apartheid regime and its cleansing wars against the Palestinians.
I would argue post-enlightenment is a fallacy. We are striving at CERN to discover the fundamental patterns and building blocks behind matter - the Higgs Boson just made world news - yet it has no useful value other than to help take us from ignorance to further enlightenment. This talk here is very gloomy and doesn't reflect the joys many people have bringing up families and sharing good times with our loved ones. This is and will continue to be a constant. We are not in a post scientific world for science is; fequently; of it's own nature counter intuitive - after all the universe exists in it's extent beyond our mere comprehension of it; it's not just springing forth from within the human mind - hence the fall of philosophy. The joy is that we are all questioning and sharing ideas with more cultures than ever before known to major western life - we are in a human renaissance sharing more widespread variety. It is another dawning of a richness in human experience - culture, language and values hitherto isolated by geographic borders. We will see a new world much grander than anything our imagination can yet picture. The artist arguing that 'the shrine is empty' is just making an excuse for a lack of self-discipline and vision. That's the great thing about returning to nature from whence we come and still must be part of - you can fool people but not nature; her character is not open to opinion - she will be who she is. This too is another constant. Evolution will continue and I believe we will make the planet more comfortable for us all as we realise the effects we have on one another in so many different ways on a more global scale.
How can we "make the planet more comfortable for all of us" as we pollute our nest with ever increasing fervor? We are reaping finally and fully the harvest of our unconscious fear of our mortality. While the west continues to consume worthless junk at ever increasing speed to distract ourselves from our true state of moral and emotional emptiness the have nots strive to make the same mistakes that the haves have made to foul the human nest. Antinatalism as a solution will never gain acceptance and so we continue on towards our final extinction or another very dark age where we reestablish our ignorance and create all the worthless gods once again.
the point is that those things can mean any number of things. The situation is not gloomy, it can be seen as gloomy, joyful, infuriating, misterious etc. You criticise, and are correct, but your arguments can also be refuted easily, the point is not that you are wrong, the point is more like "who has the authority to say you´re right?"
smythefamily Way to go man
Science has undergone a major shift with Quantum physics which has instantiated probability over determinism. This form of thought, as descriptive perception, has gradually been overtaking all forms of life and states of affairs. Adorno pointed out that as our understanding of capitalism as sheer fate without comprehension, our lives become more irrational.
As a Nietzschean, i see post modernism as a good thing, a possibility for a more chaotic, free and creative world and life.
It is the creation of a generation of the young and inexperienced who do not, will not, cannot realize that those living, those that are 20-30 years their senior, have been right where they are before, and who lash out at them with titles like "boomer". How do they not realize that they will quickly become the next spitefully labelled cohort before they know it? Is this the age of spending such little time to master anything and yet rising up to challenge those who have done so? Being bereft of any skill set or knowledge base/know-how, whatsoever, and expecting, without a doubt, that they will emerge triumphant? Could they lose horribly, but instead of picking up the pieces, lesson(s) learned, and heading back to the training ground, will they stand arrogantly, with less to fight with in the second, third, and fourth, or more, rounds.
Why is he constitution NOT a solution?
The constitution is a political document.
The problems with he's talking about are philosophical, which is much deeper and more complex.
The presenter paints, I believe, a clear vision of the total lack of a clear vision. Most interestingly though, the consequences he briefly mentions do not include anything about suffering - other than, perhaps, the personal suffering of being intellectually ungrounded, in a permanent state of statelessness - an affliction of the privileged and affluent? Perhaps, but then it's the privileged and affluent that, arguably, act in ways that yield most of the suffering - so we might want to be concerned about their (our) psychological health.
Missing for me are the biological imperatives; in a world of infinite ideas and opinions and causes and worldviews, suffering in various forms is common. Whoever you are, whatever your worldview, your finger will withdrawal from a flame (pathologies aside) and you will reach for water when thirsty, etc., and you will suffer if there is interference. Of all of the -ism's, it seems to me that organism is one worth focusing upon, the scope of which can include individuals, communities and biospheres.
He needs a post-dentist
Foolish bitch
Rather bad and underdeveloped understanding of almost all theories. Postcolonialism is written without the dash to trouble the rigid periodization you suggest, Stalinism has little to do with Marxism and more with capitalism etc. You are old and don't have time enough left to read, which is a shame.
You are very stupid
Money = an escape from the horrors of post-modern nihilism.
Produces a whole video expositing the themes of post modernism and then attacks all the authors who expound these contours of post modernism - and why - because he is getting a check from china and he doesnt want them to feel dumb because they cant understand these texts - thereby he manages to undermine the entire video through his performative actions - a literal kowtow to capital, nationalism, and new meta-narratives of China's rise - all capped off by a listing of existential thematics straight out of heidegger and sartre (i thought we were past that metanarrative bra) - hilarious....
My summary - computers exist, gatekeepers gone, and marx was still right
Edit- I teach at University and i find after many years that the capacity of my chinese exchange students to think critically and abstractly correlates directly with how "westernized" that student is... The text reads itself through the individual approaching it and as nietzsche would point out - the national character of those individuals has been inhibited by 2,300 years of confucian deferral of independence and thought.... There is a reason the whole chinese economy of rmb is monopoly money and they are a debt burdened, shadow banking, and submissive police-state society - or truth isnt real?
This guys just on a rant - hes explaining post modernity extremely poorly and uncritically.
I'm sure you can do it better from your keyboard