I discovered postmodernism via architecture rather than philosophy, but I did spend a lot of time in the '90s being very much intrigued with post-structuralism and post-modernism. I liked being a post- person; I liked any system of thought or aesthetics that was *post* something. Well, I still like post-punk music and post-modern architecture.
Marx took Hegel's dialectic and "turned it on its head". Hegel, a theist, saw history as driven by a "World Spirit"; Marx, an atheist, saw history in materialistic terms.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx I recently read in “The Social and Political Writing of Marx” (auth?) descriptions straight from Marx’s writings about what would happen if the jackass anarchists get control of the socialist international. He very clearly and accurately predicted the Soviet Union and its crude leveling and barracks communism. His books were also banned in the Soviet Union.
@@JHimminy That is interesting, but the Soviet Union didn't have much to do with the Socialist International; it sprang from Marx's own writings, and I doubt he predicted such an outcome coming from his own work. It's not that Marx himself intended genocide, but rather that his work has historically provided a veritable license for such to be committed. And I have heard that certain of Marx's works pertaining to the Russian communes were censored in the Soviet Union, but on the whole Marx's work formed the core of much of their curriculum.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx people don’t need licenses to kill others, and they’ll hang their “reasons” on anything available. The French Revolution didn’t require Marx, but I imagine you don’t know much about that bloody affair.
My question is: Do Postmodernists err or do we just not like the consequences of their thinking? Kant ecourages us to use our reason also to our reason itself so that we recognise the limits of this reason, what we can know and what we cannot know. My impression is this application of reason goes to far for some. Because if our reason is limited what becomes of our truths set in stone? What becomes of society if there are not truths set in stone? By the way, this is a bad review of a bad book. An ignorant reader swallos readily what a dubious author tells him. Why does the reader do that? Because he is such a critical mind that he despises everything that's mainstream and swallows everything that's fringe.
Lmao, if you truly believe that it is "an article of religious faith in our culture" that a giraffe is taller than an ant (an actual statement uttered by postmodern philosopher Laurie Calhoun), or if you think that a biological male competing in female sports constitutes a fair contest, then you bet your sweet ass you err. There may indeed be limits to reason, but there are things about the world which we can know incontrovertibly. But I find it quite hilarious that you label me ignorant for finding value in a "fringe" book that merely calls out blatant lunacies, but apparently see no problem with mainstream works of insanity like Foucault's, who asserted that all knowledge was "historically contingent" (while being blithely oblivious to the fact that such a claim is itself historically contingent). Just more evidence of how far postmodernism has screwed up the world.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx ad Laurie Calhoun: I can only find a second hand quote for that. Somebody alleges she had said that in a discussion. Not a good basis for a fair discussion of her actual views. Why would a contest in sports between males and females not be fair? For many sports you need certain physical properties (e.g. height). Not all people have those properties needed in certain sports, no matter if they are men or women. How is that fair? The division of competitors in sports by their sex is somewhat arbitrary. It is a social decision that we want women sports, that we, let's say, want an olympic high jump competition for women but see no need for an olympic hight jump competieon for stout men, who are also physically disadvantaged for high jump. If there are limits to reason how can you be incontrovertibly sure that there are things of which we can know that they are incontrovertibly true? How do you discern the things of which we can know incontrovertably from the things we can not know incontrovertably? What makes you think Foucault was oblivious of the fact that our/his knowledge is also historically contingent? (And we do not want to delf into such sophistery like: When you say "I know nothing." you contradict yourself. You'd have to say: "I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing ...") How do you know the book is sound and doesn't completely misrepresent philosophical positions when you yourself have so little knowledge about the issue?
@@toni1140 Lol, your dismissal of the giraffe/ant quote is the result of a deep-seated knowledge that it is an indefensible proposition. Just as it is an indefensible proposition to say that a female deadlifter in competition with a male deadlifter is on average a fair competition. While it is true that there may be certain select individual instances where it might be, as regards the average, such is not the case. The division of sports into male and female leagues is not, as you claim, arbitrary, but is the logical consequence of brute facts of nature. That you may not like these facts does not erase them. If you stick your hand in a fire you will be burned every time, whether you want to be or not; if you aren't, then it would not be fire as we know it. All things being the same, the outcome to an event will not deviate. Such was common knowledge until postmodernism convinced people that knowledge at all is an illusion. But whatever dude. Believe what you want; I don't care. I think you make a stronger case for this "bad" book than my "bad" review ever could. XD
@@TH3F4LC0Nx You miss the point. My thought is: Why do we have women's competitions instead of just saying, "Well, if you happen to be a woman you might have a physical disadvantage in many sports just like many other people, who are not women, might have a physical disadvatage in certain sports."? Weigt classes or age classes seem to be more logic to give more people a chance to compete than sex classes. But has this even a lot to do with postmodernism? You deny it in another comment but I have the strong impression that you feel uncomfortable with some developments in society and blame a crudely understood postmodernism for all that. It doesn't seem you really dealt with postmodernis and made up your mind about it. You just want to fight the spectre of postmodernism and so you praise a book that supports your opinion. You have too little knowledge about philosophy in general and especially about postmodern philosophy as that you could really judge, if this book is a good book, a sound and decent analysis of postmodernism.
The book really just traces a certain history of thought; many of the citations are quotes directly from the works of the authors he's scrutinizing. It's just following a pattern.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx it has been around five years since I’ve read it, but I distinctly remember his citations and “direct quotes,” being either out-of-context misrepresentations or gross extrapolations. I caught wind of it after Jordan Peterson gave it a shout out and the bias running throughout the text told me all I needed to know. I watched a video by another youtuber who systematically dissected and critiqued all the issues a while back so I didn’t feel crazy. Don’t get me wrong, fuck postmodenism-but to blame postmodernism for every contemporary issue seems a little lame. Even McCarthy was a postmodernist to some extent.
@@antonychigurh8939 There is a certain element of bias to it, definitely; (he makes Locke out to be some rational deistic saint and Kant a devious religious fanatic, even though Locke was actually far more devout than Kant ever was, etc.). But the overall arc of the book I feel is generally pretty sound. Like, we know that Hegel came off the heels of Kant, we know that Marx came off the heels of Hegel, we know that Marxism took major blows repeatedly throughout the 20th century, we know that the French intellectuals (who were Marxists nearly across the board) radically eroded the concept of objectivity with their work, we know that Marcuse pioneered critical theory to provide new avenues to keep the dream alive, etc. Does Hicks make extrapolations? Absolutely. Are they all incontestable? Probably not. But there are things there to be noted, I would say. But while I can't speak for Hicks, I'm by no means personally blaming postmodernism for every contemporary issue. Heaven knows there are way more problems in the world than that.
Pretending is not the same as being fundamentally wrong about what youre doing. Marx predicted and explained that cqpitalism would grow and consistently save itself, because thats how powerful it is.
After giving great deliberation to your proposal, and being admittedly quite tempted to accede, I must regretfully inform you that I cannot in good conscience do so, and therefore must refrain.
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
Wonderful! Subscribed :)
Thank you! :)
Thank you for wading into such dangerous topics to uphold the nobility of our humanity. Liked and subscribed.
Thanks, much appreciated! :)
I read this a while back. I rather liked the overview of the history of thought.
He makes some connections which I found rather illuminating. :)
I discovered postmodernism via architecture rather than philosophy, but I did spend a lot of time in the '90s being very much intrigued with post-structuralism and post-modernism. I liked being a post- person; I liked any system of thought or aesthetics that was *post* something. Well, I still like post-punk music and post-modern architecture.
I'm a big fan of post-punk myself, lol. :D
Post modernism can be a terrible antithesis of a modern generation towards post modern person
@@Impaled_Onion-thatsmine Postmodern thought was lots and lots of fun. Bricollage is always a literary delight...and a fun way to do philosophy.
@SmallSpaceCorgi I'm a post modern philosopher walk with a post modern antithetical era that came before me
Marx used reason in a system of thought that had largely divorced itself from reason?
Marx took Hegel's dialectic and "turned it on its head". Hegel, a theist, saw history as driven by a "World Spirit"; Marx, an atheist, saw history in materialistic terms.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx so you think hegel is reasonable?
@@williamgass9242 Not particularly.
Postmodernism critique with a postpuk intro. ZKek.
It's a mad mad mad mad world.
Video needs to be at least eight plus hours twenty five minutes are too short!
Do consider picking up the book if you want to go deeper.
Throw away objectivity because you might not like kant as a man. Remember kant believed in god.
Indeed, and Hicks does discuss Kant's religiousness.
Marx wouldn't have approved of lenin or mao
Maybe not, but they sure approved of him.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx And they seemed like real smart readers and good people, didn't they? Not!
@@TH3F4LC0Nx I recently read in “The Social and Political Writing of Marx” (auth?) descriptions straight from Marx’s writings about what would happen if the jackass anarchists get control of the socialist international. He very clearly and accurately predicted the Soviet Union and its crude leveling and barracks communism. His books were also banned in the Soviet Union.
@@JHimminy That is interesting, but the Soviet Union didn't have much to do with the Socialist International; it sprang from Marx's own writings, and I doubt he predicted such an outcome coming from his own work. It's not that Marx himself intended genocide, but rather that his work has historically provided a veritable license for such to be committed. And I have heard that certain of Marx's works pertaining to the Russian communes were censored in the Soviet Union, but on the whole Marx's work formed the core of much of their curriculum.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx people don’t need licenses to kill others, and they’ll hang their “reasons” on anything available. The French Revolution didn’t require Marx, but I imagine you don’t know much about that bloody affair.
Capitalists are sponsoring all the shit you hate. Do the math.
Some perhaps, but I'm free to not support them. And I don't.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx you don’t matter. And you worship false idols anyhow
My question is: Do Postmodernists err or do we just not like the consequences of their thinking?
Kant ecourages us to use our reason also to our reason itself so that we recognise the limits of this reason, what we can know and what we cannot know. My impression is this application of reason goes to far for some. Because if our reason is limited what becomes of our truths set in stone? What becomes of society if there are not truths set in stone?
By the way, this is a bad review of a bad book. An ignorant reader swallos readily what a dubious author tells him. Why does the reader do that? Because he is such a critical mind that he despises everything that's mainstream and swallows everything that's fringe.
Lmao, if you truly believe that it is "an article of religious faith in our culture" that a giraffe is taller than an ant (an actual statement uttered by postmodern philosopher Laurie Calhoun), or if you think that a biological male competing in female sports constitutes a fair contest, then you bet your sweet ass you err. There may indeed be limits to reason, but there are things about the world which we can know incontrovertibly. But I find it quite hilarious that you label me ignorant for finding value in a "fringe" book that merely calls out blatant lunacies, but apparently see no problem with mainstream works of insanity like Foucault's, who asserted that all knowledge was "historically contingent" (while being blithely oblivious to the fact that such a claim is itself historically contingent). Just more evidence of how far postmodernism has screwed up the world.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx ad Laurie Calhoun: I can only find a second hand quote for that. Somebody alleges she had said that in a discussion. Not a good basis for a fair discussion of her actual views.
Why would a contest in sports between males and females not be fair? For many sports you need certain physical properties (e.g. height). Not all people have those properties needed in certain sports, no matter if they are men or women. How is that fair? The division of competitors in sports by their sex is somewhat arbitrary. It is a social decision that we want women sports, that we, let's say, want an olympic high jump competition for women but see no need for an olympic hight jump competieon for stout men, who are also physically disadvantaged for high jump.
If there are limits to reason how can you be incontrovertibly sure that there are things of which we can know that they are incontrovertibly true? How do you discern the things of which we can know incontrovertably from the things we can not know incontrovertably?
What makes you think Foucault was oblivious of the fact that our/his knowledge is also historically contingent? (And we do not want to delf into such sophistery like: When you say "I know nothing." you contradict yourself. You'd have to say: "I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing except the one thing that I know nothing ...")
How do you know the book is sound and doesn't completely misrepresent philosophical positions when you yourself have so little knowledge about the issue?
@@toni1140 Lol, your dismissal of the giraffe/ant quote is the result of a deep-seated knowledge that it is an indefensible proposition. Just as it is an indefensible proposition to say that a female deadlifter in competition with a male deadlifter is on average a fair competition. While it is true that there may be certain select individual instances where it might be, as regards the average, such is not the case. The division of sports into male and female leagues is not, as you claim, arbitrary, but is the logical consequence of brute facts of nature. That you may not like these facts does not erase them. If you stick your hand in a fire you will be burned every time, whether you want to be or not; if you aren't, then it would not be fire as we know it. All things being the same, the outcome to an event will not deviate. Such was common knowledge until postmodernism convinced people that knowledge at all is an illusion. But whatever dude. Believe what you want; I don't care. I think you make a stronger case for this "bad" book than my "bad" review ever could. XD
@@TH3F4LC0Nx You miss the point. My thought is: Why do we have women's competitions instead of just saying, "Well, if you happen to be a woman you might have a physical disadvantage in many sports just like many other people, who are not women, might have a physical disadvatage in certain sports."? Weigt classes or age classes seem to be more logic to give more people a chance to compete than sex classes.
But has this even a lot to do with postmodernism? You deny it in another comment but I have the strong impression that you feel uncomfortable with some developments in society and blame a crudely understood postmodernism for all that. It doesn't seem you really dealt with postmodernis and made up your mind about it. You just want to fight the spectre of postmodernism and so you praise a book that supports your opinion. You have too little knowledge about philosophy in general and especially about postmodern philosophy as that you could really judge, if this book is a good book, a sound and decent analysis of postmodernism.
So the scholarship in Hick’s book is notoriously poor-js
The book really just traces a certain history of thought; many of the citations are quotes directly from the works of the authors he's scrutinizing. It's just following a pattern.
@@TH3F4LC0Nx it has been around five years since I’ve read it, but I distinctly remember his citations and “direct quotes,” being either out-of-context misrepresentations or gross extrapolations. I caught wind of it after Jordan Peterson gave it a shout out and the bias running throughout the text told me all I needed to know. I watched a video by another youtuber who systematically dissected and critiqued all the issues a while back so I didn’t feel crazy. Don’t get me wrong, fuck postmodenism-but to blame postmodernism for every contemporary issue seems a little lame. Even McCarthy was a postmodernist to some extent.
@@antonychigurh8939 There is a certain element of bias to it, definitely; (he makes Locke out to be some rational deistic saint and Kant a devious religious fanatic, even though Locke was actually far more devout than Kant ever was, etc.). But the overall arc of the book I feel is generally pretty sound. Like, we know that Hegel came off the heels of Kant, we know that Marx came off the heels of Hegel, we know that Marxism took major blows repeatedly throughout the 20th century, we know that the French intellectuals (who were Marxists nearly across the board) radically eroded the concept of objectivity with their work, we know that Marcuse pioneered critical theory to provide new avenues to keep the dream alive, etc. Does Hicks make extrapolations? Absolutely. Are they all incontestable? Probably not. But there are things there to be noted, I would say. But while I can't speak for Hicks, I'm by no means personally blaming postmodernism for every contemporary issue. Heaven knows there are way more problems in the world than that.
Pretending is not the same as being fundamentally wrong about what youre doing. Marx predicted and explained that cqpitalism would grow and consistently save itself, because thats how powerful it is.
Well I guess he got that right.
@TH3F4LC0Nx it's in his textbook about economics called Das capital. A lot of similar ideas to wealth of nations.
Shutup
After giving great deliberation to your proposal, and being admittedly quite tempted to accede, I must regretfully inform you that I cannot in good conscience do so, and therefore must refrain.
God what drivel
Thanks, I try. 😘
@@TH3F4LC0Nx You could stand to try harder