Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks: Chapter 3: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- This audiobook edition of Explaining Postmodernism is read by the author.
To listen to more of the audiobook on TH-cam, visit: / epaudiobook
To download MP3s of the audiobook or for more information, visit Dr. Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism page:
www.stephenhick...
Other links:
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Website: www.stephenhick...
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy
I'm finally beginning to understand where one of my best friends from highschool and my own path diverged to the point where there seems to be almost no common ground between us on any issue, no matter how trivial, he having taken the philosophy road to enlightenment and me taking the economics route. By taking reality as a first premise one is lead to certain materialist conclusions which are congenial to economics, while philosophy has gotten so abstract only group identification can save you
Bass Nerds : I think the same thing
SH asserts I thought PM philosophy is more the road away from Enlightenment, to the (crazy mixed up shook up) world as we now find it around us...
Making your way in this world is like Heidegger talking about how a carpenter "knows" what a hammer is better than people just objectively describing it.
At least you seem to understand what is being said in this video. I simply cannot grasp how they expect us to think that reason and logic are somehow unable to deal with some of these thoughts. I think the example of how both sides of the question leads to absurdities and so therefore reason/logic needs to be discarded is so outrageous, if both sides lead to absurdities, it seems far more reasonable to assume you have not thought of another possibility rather then to discard reason and logic.
Two dislikes, eh? Looks like Foucault and Derrida were here.
this book Is essential to understand the current zeitgeist
Daniel Robert Prieto : the dominant "intellectual" Zeitgeist. normal folk just don't feel that way.
Enjoyed listening. Great stuff. There is a lot of spelling mistakes in the text/ the transcript. Thanks for sharing with us.
Another misconception of Post modernism is the broad presumption of relativism in terms of mergers and acquisitions. Its fertile ground for graft.
I don't see the dilemma that postmodernism sees with reason failing to explain being. The reason something exists rather than nothing is that nothing has never been and will never be a true state of reality. What reason do we have to propose "nothing" as a state that being had to arise from? I feel like they boxed themselves into a unnecessary corner, proposing that the most fundamental being has to emerge from nothingness. Its either eternally something or it's nothingness. Neither can produce or be derived from the other, so only one is true. So reason would dictate that we reject nothingness, because it has no reason to be a state of reality.
Time is an emergent property of our universe due to the closed system's change in entropy from low to high. If these phenomena are nonexistent outside of our universe, and what exists is an eternal fabric of reality outside of time why would that be bound to being and nothingness as we construct it in our minds? Is it not reasonable for that fabric to have always existed and to always exist? This idea is more fully explained by physicist Lawrence Krauss in "A Universe From Nothing".
I would think these philosophers would have considered the possibility of an eternal universe. In fact, I think in the earlier chapter, Hicks mentions how this also defies reason in some way.
I agree that these philosophers always seem to be testing the boundaries of "absolute" concepts. In other words, if they can find a single exception to a rule or concept, then they believe they have disproved it. This would be using Aristotle's principle of contradiction, I believe.
I do think we know "only a little." We never know enough to make categorical statements. So, in that sense, metaphysics may be impossible. The pragmatists seem to have dealt with this. They are only concerned with what appears to make some difference at the moment. Of course, they may be ignoring issues that will make a difference only in the long run.
If any philosopher did answer one of the Ultimate Questions that would be the end of that kind of philosophy. The answer would become the basis for a new religion.
Try building up...some one...many people...an organization...and all this disappears into blah blah blah NOTHINGNESS. Only committed CRITs...Deconstructions...Community Organizers...Jet Setters to Climate Summits...shitting garbage out the ass and mouths the whole way.
I almost can't listen to these chapters out of disgust of these philosophers. Their philosophies seem so much like bullshit it is unbelievable that they got away with writing it and people actually taking it seriously.
I think that's a mistake. Understanding why/the "reason" why these philosophies came to prominence is essential to reigniting the Enlightenment.
Jevioso Orishas Exactly. Sun Tzu had much to say in this regard.
Well yes...BS for sure...but WEAPONIZED to WIN...you need to understand enough to disarm the effects of their babble. They feel bad looking in the mirror...and desperately want to reflect that on you...defeat you...and LORD over you. Doesn't get more SLAVE MASTER than KNEELING on your brain...and SLAVE MASTER = RACISTS...are you prepared to meet them on their own terms...ARM UP FRIEND! They care not about your sweet little consistency rational games.
So it seems they take all the cynical parts of Nietzsche and Heidegger out of their holistic context, leaving the transcendent parts behind
Piece of advice! Turn off the captions or go insane. kiitos, anyhow, good lecture.
Part of the TH-camUniversity "YTU" as good as "MIT" -trust me.
Next time I’m hungover and feel a poetic rhyme come to mind then I WILL WRITE IT DOWN! To compare it with this nonsense - I’m a freaking genius in comparison! To be or not to be, THAT’s a question. To question if a being can reason while using your reasoning, reasoning about whether you can or can’t reason, coming to the conclusion that we can’t reason… well, that might be true in this case - they certainly cannot. What a punishment listening to this reasoning. My brain is no accepting their reasoning. That’s my reasoning. Therefor I am. Not a postmodernist.
All skeptics CLING RIGOURSLY to PRINCIPLES of REASON...to disprove reason. Come on. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH
ugh, pseudophilosophy.
"abandoning reason, putting wild speculation at the forefront"
Yes you are. That, is why you fail.
+bpansky You are a wet blanket, bpansky1
C. Nathan Chavez
Wait, so do you not care to distinguish between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? What are you even trying to say?
This is a dialogue explaining the different philosophies conserning Postmodernism. You attacked the processor rather than the philosophy. You didn't give a thorough explanation (on why the philosophy failed)That is why YOU fail. Ironically your response could be classified as a bit Postmodern in today's standards toward philsophy.
C. Nathan Chavez
Yes I was mistaken about who I needed to criticize for holding that view.
Do I need to explain to you why "abandoning reason, putting wild speculation at the forefront" is a really bad idea?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your last sentence there.