I liked the part about science and post modernists... Here are my thoughts on the same subject. Science has become the handmaid of progressivism. incapp.org/blog/?p=4376
His explanation for why postmodernism came about is what I always suspected and was always the bad feeling I got when thinking about it, but I just didn't know enough so I could connect all these things the way he did in this lecture. But now I know a lot more than I did, so I don't have to just rely on my negative emotions about it.
Marxism and Postmodernism don't directly align on paper due to Postmodernism's presumed rejection of metanarratives, all encompassing theories of how human societies work. Yet in practice, the Postmodernists, as Hicks point out, are remarkably consistent in giving fealty to the NeoMarxist agenda.
This is very interesting in light of the recent videos published by Jordan Peterson. Peterson has delved into the psychology of the postmodernist movement. There is very good support for Dr. Hick's psychological hypotheses in Peterson's lectures. And I believe there are even some psychological studies being conducted by his graduate students on the subject.
Dear Dr. Hicks, I greatly enjoyed this lecture series. I have been working on a PhD in Leadership Studies at Gonzaga University, and I have been frustrated by the postmodernism of this program. I think that a lot of the denial of science on the left is also about a sort of privileging of faith as a social norm in the humanities. My impression is that this emerged in part because of the political cover academia has needed in the face of Christian ideology here in the west. This in part explains the weird bedfellows we see in Islam and Feminism - both take cover under the privileged status of faith-based belief. Anyway, my dissertation is on the topic of the psychology of dogmatism. VERY briefly, what I have found is that people make moral claims as well as identity claims around truth claims, which we use to form pseudo-tribal identities around ideological “belonging.” From here we make a judgement that it is unacceptable for us to be mistaken in our belief, if my beliefs are wrong, it becomes a crisis of identity, as well as a moral and social crisis, for me, since my identity is tied into my social support system by this pseudo-tribal identity. To put it succinctly: I become dogmatic when I decide that it is unacceptable for me to be mistaken. Conversely: When I make the unacceptable acceptable, then I am free to choose.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +5
Feminism cooperates with Islam because they have a common enemy. It is certainly absurd feminists ignore the obvious sexism and racism of Islam (which is worse today than in the West at any point in history) because Islam is anti-Western and anti-Christian. But its a marriage of convenience however, temporary cooperation until the common enemy is destroyed, then they will turn on each other, firstly to convert, but finally to annihilate if necessary.
@faultroy Wait, how do you know the statistic you put forth isn't manipulated? Talk about naivety; how can you try to dismantle the legitimacy of statistical data so broadly while simultaneously using Data as your source to disprove it? Postmodernism at its finest! Contradictory to the point of absurdity.
Una maravilla el profesor. A menudo discuto estos temas y necesitaba poner en claro muchos temas. La claridad en los argumentos del profesor es propia de quien adhiere a la ilustración, frente a la enmarañada y obscura trama que caracteriza a la argumentación de los postmodernistas. Gracias Stephen, esperamos más sus libros en español
I loved it. I have been watching/listening to a lot of speakers trying to get a better understanding of postmodernism...Mr. Hicks presents a well structured discussion on the topic, from its genesis to today. By exploring the psychology of postmodernists as well as offering debating strategies, he has given me more confidence on the topic and helped reinforce some of the things I am doing to get the word out. Thank you Mr. Hicks.
Building wealth involves developing good habits like regularly putting money away in intervals for solid investments. Instead of trying to predict and prognosticate the stability of the market and precisely when the change is going to happen, a better strategy is simply having a portfolio that’s well prepared for any eventually, that’s how some folks' been averaging 150K every 7week these past 4months according to Bloomberg.
The US-Stock Mrkt had been on it’s longest bull-run in history, so the mass hysteria and panic is relatable considering we’re not accustomed to such troubled mrkts, but there are avenues lurking around if you know where to look. My wife and I are retiring this year with over $7,000,000 in tax deferred investments. up until 3 years ago we were 100% in the S&P. During bear markets we had a perfect plan. We got an investment manager in our corner and didn’t look at our portfolio for nearly a year.
Enjoy the emphasis on the timeline of events and as Tomas Sowell would say "intellectuals' . Thank you for your well. Reasoned, researched, studied, etc. Hypothesis.
Something we truly need today is a primer on how to deconstruct postmodernism. Postmoderns get argued into a corner, and deflect to give themselves space to regroup. If we are to have any hope of combatting this cancer, we as an anti-postmodern community will need to semi-systemize the counterrevolutionary arguments and practices that will not allow the deflection.
It occurs to me that whilst Kant may have kickstarted the epistemological subjectivity movement his categorical imperative explicitly refutes the primacy of feelings, putting duty over unreliable compassion
Once we are sufficiently attracted to anything, reason never prevails. Try for example convincing with reason, a person in love - that their amour will prove a disaster to them...
To the audience members question at 1:11:30 (about postmodernism's influence in the arts). I am a painter who has spent a great deal of time in shared art spaces, surrounded by artists of all kinds. The connective thread amongst these people is predominantly confusion and nailism.
Objective Philosophy doesn't have an answer for aesthetics unless it's basis is in the framework of utility and utility according to who or what? Is it the economy the dominant politic? The critiques of Capitalism are a kind of paranoia and suspicion of the existential why they where they are? Lifes hard, and Corporations lead logically to mitigating risk which makes life even more, spiritually lacking unless the consumer can be moved into a fantasy realm. Which again makes for a world that seems lacking. But what I find is the world is big of you want to go-to the places where risk is rewarded and punished harshly it's out there, most just avoid that. So Americans have largely embodied the values of the objective work of Corporations.
I went to art school in the late '80's -early '90's and found the judgemental nature of the post modernists highly off putting. It looks as though it has only gotten worse since then.
How long is a generation? This was made 22 years ago, and he predicted postmodernism would be gone in a generation. I doubt he'd make that same prediction in today's atmosphere.
There is a governing dynamic within which enlightenment successes are constructed. There is something outside reason that validates it as it’s exercised within a larger ordered framework, the scientific method is anchored to a pre existing ordered creation in which reason is an attribute in its discovery and understanding. The historical context of the enlightenment is not the ultimate context of the enlightenment. We must not apply a time of human ignorance to creation itself thus elevating reason above creation.
But it would behove thee, Sir, to give more credit and thanks to Miss Rand for her priceless contribution on these topics/issues. Her influence upon you is very obvious (and please believe me, that's meant to be High Praise indeed!) Regards, Rob
I’m not a fan of postmodernism, but when Hicks mentions creationists argue that nobody knows the absolute truth, or when he mentions religion was basically taking a hit in the 1700s I believe he should have mentioned Christianity specifically. Because there are other religions that didn’t suffer the enlightenment ideologies as Christianity did, nor are Christians the only theists out there!
What people believe to be true largely depends on (is relative to) the ends those beliefs serve and the circumstance they find themselves in. Our relation to truth is oriented towards production and capital or material gains, things that can be recorded and verified - in this way, we pretend to fully detach truth from ourselves for the moment but ultimately (and perhaps ironically) because we have found that treating truth in this way generally satisfies our needs and our desires as individuals and as a culture.
It is possible to overcome your own perspective/biases - the result, however, is never ideology but rather case by case action based on the best information available. Broad sweeping generalisations will not be relevant to such an actor/thinker.
@@Havre_Chithra There is no framework for truth, there is no consideration for truth at all. That is the fallacy of what we seem to do. Truth is some idea/meme trap. There are only actions. Once the mythical quest for truth is abandoned, what can be rooted in bias. What can be bias? Bias is a trap itself. A statement that x is biased is a statement that x does not see truth and acts contrary to truth. In reality, there was only action and dissapproval by another who wants to say x is biased. I am forever bemused (and often amused) at the attempts by humans to analyse themselves. Truly, the only way to look inside yourself is to have your head up your a$$ :-) We, like every other atom in the universe follow an unfathomable path. Whilst we have had success in applied science by the use of thought and reason, outside of this 2000 years of writing drivel has produced nothing. Any advancement (perceived to be so anyway) can be traced to practical real world events and developments and not to art, humanities or the like.
@@tonyjames8805 I don't think that's true. There's a clear consideration for truth (or at least as close as it can be approximated) in a lot of the frameworks that people adopt - e.g., the scientific method. Other frameworks of truth (e.g., religion) are still concerned with truth, arguably to a much lesser degree, and so too approximate it to a lesser degree. The reasons people have, and why people adopt the frameworks they do (and whether or not people are more or less concerned with approximating something close to truth) comes down to the desires and goals of individuals and the cultures they find themselves attached to.
Ryan G I agree - people do as you say, my point is that it is misconceived. Even in science the point is not truth in the real sense but rather successful prediction, which in mechanistic systems is achievable. Elsewhere it really isn’t and so action without overlays of truth are, in my view, more appropriate. I have spent my life since University exfoliating truths and frameworks (deprogramming myself) to live by naked, in the moment decision making. I continue to function - just without delusion. Each morning I decide to go to work or not and have numerous times just radically changed everything in my life. I am no longer burdened by frameworks or truth. Guess what ? Nothing bad has come from this abandonment.
I think self interest always rules our actions and guides our trajectories. The evolution of Postmodernism is largely the result of population explosion: World population in 1650, or so, was 500 million, by 1850 it was 1 billion, by 1930 it was 2 billion, by 1975 it was 4 billion, today it is 7.2 billion and climbing. Everyone demands satisfaction, and there is never closure on this demand. The greater the number of people,the greater the the collective thirst for it. The more convenience and comfort, the less incentive to inquire, and the greater the existential burden of self contemplation. The elimination of any need to inquire or to solve problems ( thanks to science and technology) leaves us a world in which "equality" is the last frontier - one in which standards must dissolve, in which case, the more elite minds and characters will have to segregate themselves...maybe, someday soon, on the Moon...
That is very wise. I believe this lust for equity posing as equality will end with a one world government. Hopefully I will be long dead before that time though, as centralized power over 7 continents will not go well for anyone.
Professor Hicks, great lecture. I just disagree modern creationists don't want to suppress evolution but want a fair hearing of creation in the public sphere. If we all agree free speech is important as is freedom of religion/belief (even free to be an atheist), no-one will shut others down. Christians who have thought this all through do not want a theocracy anymore than a socialist politically correct dictatorship - as could be equally bad.
@Seven V And what is atheism/evolution then - why is that not indoctrination? When only one view of anything is pushed and no other permitted - is that not indoctrination? Why not let people hear all sides, just evidence even for historical events claimed eg. Flood and weigh up to see which worldview/belief best it supports or do you fear Materialism can no longer stand up on it's own given what we now know about even simplest cell -being too complex for random evolution? That there is mind apart from brain (experiments on coma patients -refer Michael Egnor). Several examples of complexity and universe theories have changed, always changing.
Maybe the best lecture I have ever heard, and I have heard hundreds of objectivist lectures. I do disagree on one point though: there is almost never a reason to argue with a post modernist as more than 99.9% of them are dishonest and will not change their minds no matter how badly they lose. As they reject reason you can never reach them with reason. The only way to deal with them is by using force. To use force against those who reject reason is sometimes legitimate, even if they have not initiated force themselves.
Chris Collin That is not a legitimate use of force. They're wrong. Ok. Being wrong, and stubbornly so, does not necessitate the use of force. I don't know why it would. The goal is not to convince them, it's to discredit them. Using force gives them more credit than they deserve.
Of course it does because Postmodernist neo progressive ideology explicitly encapsulates the concept of revolutionary social warfare. They need putting down. Hard.
There is a post-postmoderism in Ken Wilber's Integral Pluralism. What I've heard here is all excellent but these two world views can be reconciled preserving the best of both.
I'm surprised that Nietzsche is somewhat of an icon of the postmodernist movement. The postmodernist movement seems to be the personification of his concept of herd morality - the direct opposite.
Prof HIcks was amazing prescient - mostly. But post-modernism combined with intersectionality may end the American Republic. Which will be the end of post-modernism and all the self-entitled demands.
I totally agree with his destruction of the socialist arguement. I also accept his argument that socialist opportunistically use postmodernism as a tool to advance their politics. But I can't shake the feeling that he linked socialism and postmodernism to create a straw man arguement as he never tackled postmodernism directly. Also, its unclear that we actually function as a capitalists society and not a monopolistic oligarchy.
What's so fabulous about 'reason'? Should we profoundly disagree it's still likely we'll both push our reasons - surely, no one is arguing that postmodernists are any different to their opponents with regard to the modus vivendi of argument? Additionally, as if this isn't serious enough, what's so fabulous about 'facts'? Aren't they too, along with 'reason' and 'reasonability' - at least in some of the most crucial epistemological contexts - like beauty, also in the eye of the beholder?
It’s more correct to say post modernist take a personal leak of feeling (not faith) in justifying their beliefs. At least from a Christian biblical perspective, subjectivism and relativism epitomizes faithlessness.
This lecture is from 1998, right? That’s over 25 years ago. Some of his predictions have held, but not the one about postmodernism’s eventual disintegration-if anything, the opposite has happened, and the idiocy has gotten worse and holds more sway than ever, as well as become manifest in popular culture.
I guess I am just too old and ultra - conservative, but I find it offensively Postmodernist for members of the audience to address Professor Hicks as "Stephen." But then, the beauty here is that the truly great magically beget the presumption of peerage in their beholders...
This is what wikipedia says. Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form-a work of art-that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally. I disagree with this on a few points. The basic idea that objective reality is a real thing that can be perceived is basically sound. However, I think she fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents Christianity. I also think her notions on Art are nonsense. Art can do what she is asking, but Art can do many things. Art is subjective, mostly, some extremes of certain artist output not withstanding. She seems to be negating the value of abstraction or conceptual art. Art may have an interaction with philosophy on certain grounds but Art is more like theater. Now granted, post modern in art has created some things that are maybe not that great, but much that is still very interesting. Art allows for a vastness of experiences and perspectives. That is a good thing, because creativity does assert individualism, values, morals. Art, even when it seeks to negate things can not help but be something. Rational self interest and the pursuit of happiness is basically sound, but I don't know if I would characterize that as the moral purpose of life. the purpose of life is perhaps subjective, and up to an individual, but it could be seen that that the purpose of life is for humans to come to the fullness of knowledge of God. Without God and values and morals the pursuit of happiness can become grotesque.
By what means do you come to have knowledge of god? It certainly isn't through evidence and reason, which means some alleged alternative to reason (faith/mysticism) or something additional (faith/mysticism) that, when there is a conflict between it and reason faith/mysticism trumps reason. I think Rand understood this perfectly clearly. Why do you package god and values and morals as if it is obvious or self-evident that they all go together somehow? You realize non-religious people value things don't you? You realize non-religious people can be moral don't you? God is not necessary for either values or morals, and I would argue that belief in god forecloses the possibility for actual values and morality.
superb lecture, but he is too hard on Kierkegaard, discounting his powerful critique of Hegel, Further, he seems to conflate irrational creationism and science-based Intelligent design.
I think Hicks could benefit from looking into psychology. Human beings are easily capable of holding beliefs that are irrational. Values that are 'sacred' in one's moral community disinvite rational analysis. I am sure that some postmodernists were as aware of their intentions and behaviour as he asserts, but I am equally sure many looked for post hoc rationalisations of their moral predispositions, without trying to critically analyse the morality too much (since that would be heretical). Admitting this poses problems for the power structure and exploitation worldview, of course, since it is another reason that one might support one person being inferior to another in some way that doesn't involve one consciously exploiting another (there are obviously other and more important reasons for thinking the exploitation thing is nonsense, but still).
i guess the onlt thing i really disagreed with was at the end about arts and popular culture , the best art and entertainment in my opinion is post modern it has a subtlety beyond what modernism can express.
James Joyce epitomizes postmodernism. A sentence filled with neologisms that runs for pages and pages without punctuation is NOT an example of modernism.
I generally agree with Mr. Hicks' points, apart from his point about the Creationism vs. Evolutionism. Setting aside the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, which is not my point, I do not see a reason to consider Creationism as unscientific. You can argue whether Creationism is sufficiently supported, but I can think of one argument supporting its plausibility that has not been disproved: the idea of causality. In order for the idea of causality to exist, there must have existed, ironically, something that breaks the idea of causality by not needing to itself have been caused. You could say that the universe itself, for all we know, meets this definition, but then I would say that the universe then could be the "creator" in Creationism, implying Creationism is a plausible hypothesis. I haven't encountered a mind-changing argument against this plausibility, and so I find it to be still a valid element in the set of scientific hypotheses. However, I seek to improve myself, so I am happy to entertain any reasonable counter arguments to my current thinking.
In fact it was 1989...and today it is everywhere. It is all about POLITICAL CORECTNESS, blaming others, attacking "society", accusing every oponent of beeing a Nazi or a Racist. So: The more important it became to listen to this lecture!!
I just watched a pro postmodernism video, is was loosely understandable, I saw buildings being demolished and the option to comment was switched off, i say no more
Does anyone know about the flowchart visual he's making? (Around 42:20) Any chance someone has redrawn it for youtube like one of those sketched-out big idea channels?
I think a Great Course on argumentation and debate, I recommend David Zarefsky, would go a long way for both modernist and postmodernist in navigating the minefield of this topic.
I believe in natural selection as it is taught in the Abeka history books for middle school, a totally Christian curriculum. I don’t agree that creationists reject all of what evolution offers but I’m offended to see that Charles Darwin has a huge room all to himself in Westminster while Elizabeth I’s body with its horrible effigy is stuck into a flea market type section right beside the lovely effigy of Mary Queen of Scots. It makes one wonder if it’s not better to die young. Is that the message the British people want to communicate? Since Darwin had very little formal education and died without ever finding the missing link which is the only thing that might justify his ideas.
A non literal reading of the New Testament does not require reason to be crucified. Which is ironic because Jesus as a symbol of truth or reason was indeed crucified. And truth/reason will resurrect and defeat the anti-Christ or anti-truth that is post-modernism.
Great lecture. I have to take exception with his using Christian naturalism in the enlightenment as a comparison to Socialism in the modern day, although I understand the sentiment. The enlightenment brought about a way to view the world that was radically different from the way people saw the world before. Christianity or otherwise, the epistemology before the materialist/rational paradigm was so different as to be alien to us today. We often make the mistake thinking it was something like modern young Earth creationism, which is not the case. People didn't see the Bible as some sort of science but with God. Socialism is a framework born within the darker side OF the materialist/rationalist framework. So I find it a poor choice to draw that parallel in the context of his point. The enlightenment was changing the focus of the primary epistemological framework for society, which is at a much more fundamental level, and is why to this day Christianity has not been "proven" out of existence, they actually don't overlap when you understand what they both are attempting to answer. I would say that Socialism is the inevitable outcome of the Enlightenments eschewing of religion, because it is/was a misguided attempt to answer the moral (religous) issues humans still contended with through the rational/materialist framework.
In less than a minute, Hicks has advanced the (false) meta-argument, that: the essence or gist of postmodernism, is skepticism; which skepticism leads to subjectivity; which subjectivity leads to relativism. Where at each node of this argument, he reductively misrepresents the three crucial nodes of his meta-argument. In postmodernism, the active postmodernist thinker is surrounded existentially by 'objects' of experience; the grounding or explaining or deconstructing of any particular object of experience, being a somewhat partial and isolated instance within that field. Subjectivity, and more crucially intersubjectivity, is a concept in thinking; the experiential field remains crucially objective in its appearance, even for an active postmodernist. Relativity, while something of an empirical truth, is seldom an experience or an ideology; rather it is a background presumption to postmodernist thinking. The crucial point which Hicks chooses to ignore, is that multiple philosophies coexist, as long as they have adherents. Even the enlightenment and post modernist projects, come up against the awkward fact and truth of billions of global citizens remain committed to other philosophies. This sociological fact and truth, way more significant than anything academic philosophy might author.
Correction: Kierkegaard was two things, a Socratic, and, to use his term, a "poet" of Christianity. He was NOT arguing for absurdism, or "existentialism." He rejected Hegel, thought he was a fool. And he certainly would be disgusted by and would be mocking relativism if he were alive today. Please stop conflating him with these idiots.
ThisnThatPackRat Just infiltrate the left and have them go after video games because they are "white male" fantasies, and porn because it treats women as objects, and you will awake almost every single male age 14-35 instantly, of just how far the left wants to go.
Maybe I'm just a moron and don't understand, but I disagree with his glorification of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. While I am pro-capitalism and pro-West, I don't think Objectivism is sufficiently sophisticated as to be the exemplar of anti-relativism or anti-subjectivism. There are ways in which Rand's philosophy is contradictory. For example, the steadfast adherence to free-market capitalism and the steadfast adherence to objective reasoning are not always compatible. Personally, I think Ayn Rand was so traumatized by the horrors of Marxist philosophy that she swung too far in the other direction. I've read Ayn Rand's work, and her central moral axiom is that if everyone takes care of themselves, then everyone is taken care of. I know that's an oversimplification, but not so much that I feel it would invalidate my counter-position. The problem is that life and community are just way more complicated than that, and rational self-interest is only one of many necessary moral tools. It is not _the_ moral tool, it is _a_ moral tool, and its applicability is not universal. For example, while Rand does cover and rightfully give credit to the auto-corrective forces of the market, she doesn't really cover the fact that the forces are reactionary, and that this can actually pose a serious problem. She doesn't sufficiently address the fact that externalities must take place before market forces can react, and that this is not always the optimal strategy. Roughly speaking, capitalism needs boundaries that act as preventative measures, because the corrective forces of the market are primarily reactionary and slow to move. For example, if a highly developed company is spilling toxic waste into a river, the market may very well boycott the company until the company adopts new practices (and discovering that such practices are taking place requires transparency that isn't compulsory under the sort of free-market capitalism for which Rand advocates to begin with). However, that's nevertheless reactionary, and necessitates a certain degree of damage already being done before the correction could be made. However, if the state mandates harsh penalties for such practices and provides acceptable parameters and measures to which the company must adhere from the beginning, the damage suffered may very well be minimized. Now, I realize that this kind of state intervention can swing hard toward totalitarianism and even Marxism if given enough slack. But, that's why all Western countries have constant debate, hundreds of political meetings per day, between liberals and conservatives. You have to maintain a dialogue about justifiable state intervention so the society doesn't collapse into free-market anarchy or socialist dystopia. You have to walk the line of rationality between two competing and often mutually-exclusive epistemological frameworks. Sometimes the conservatives are right, and sometimes the liberals are right. Liberals are wrong more often, sure. But that's because it's their job to spit out new ideas as a matter of course, and most new ideas end up being terrible, haha. Post-modernism is a good example of a terrible liberal-left idea. Personally, this is why I find moderate to moderate-conservative political commentators the most compelling. They walk the line that Rand largely ignored in her writings, and it reflects in their discourse. It reflects in their willingness to even have the discourse to begin with. Is it logical to have state intervention in certain situations? Yes, obviously. Is it logical for the state to stay the hell out of the market in certain situations? Yes, obviously. For example, I'm an advocate of healthy eating, and one of the lecturers I enjoy listening to has taken responsibility for happy-meal toys being banned in several American states. Personally, this disgusts me. That is not the sort of market control I feel is acceptable. It doesn't matter if I _feel_ like McDonald's is garbage food. They have the right to advertise and sell their products as they wish. Now, if there was state intervention to make sure that McDonald's wasn't dumping their fryer grease into the river near my home, I'd say that was perfectly justified. I mean, ideally you'd want to figure out a way for environmental consideration to be profitable in and of itself, but until we get there it would be foolish not to have preventative measures firmly in place. But, for the state to decide the conditions around which a parent can buy a toy for their child is beyond grotesque in this example.
My (admittedly uneducated on this issue) view is that postmodernism is in essence a made up term which can be loosely defined as any intellectual attempt to question the established norms whether on the basis of morality, values or even strictly factual accuracy. Besides, the repeated (and likely intentional) conflation of terms such as socialism and communism just speaks further to the arbitrary nature of biases which inform the speaker's point of view. While it does make an entertaining exercise in sophistry, it offers little to advance a better understanding of clear distinction between what is to be deemed objective versus subjective w.r.t. holistic vantage point that is congruent with the notion of absolute truth and universal reality.
A seemingly great lecture, though I am unqualified to have a meaningful opinion. One concern however is his interpretation of Duchamp's Fountain, which is troubling in its literalness and simplicity, going so far as to ignore a good deal of context. Secondly, while De Kooning did paint an abstract version of the Mona Lisa, the work Hicks speaks of is again by Duchamp, titled L.H.O.O.Q., and again literal and overly simplistic. This may seem trivial but it illustrates a shortfall in his research and raises the question, how many flaws are there in the rest of his research? Thoroughness matters. That being said, his background is philosophy not art history so perhaps his dissection of philosophy is more complete. This is not the first time in which I have encountered philosophers failing to exercise due humility in the interpretation of art or art history, a field no less deep and complex as his own.
His dissection of the philosophy is very incomplete as well. I noticed as well how he misrepresented the dadas. It was a joke! They were trolls. And all this speculation about deeper mythologies behind Duchamp's misadventures by art theorists after the fact totally misses the point. There's so much bias and motivated reasoning in this presentation that it becomes hard to separate the valid from the encindiary. Too many false causes, false dichotomies and appeal to consequence fallacies. At the end there is a little lesson on winning debates not by valid argumentation but through rhetoric. Counteractivism? I'm going to see if I can find his critique on theory ladened propositions. Not expecting much though, just in case he surprises me with a good argument.
Academic ivory tower watchmen are such a bore. The Post-modernist are just saying what is literally happening to alot of people. My friends current boyfriend will have to go-to jail for crime he didn't commit simply because the charges were filled and pursued and the risk his attorney feels is unbalanced in the prosecutors favor. He made a logical desicion rather than an absurd leap and will now go to jail for 2yrs. This happens 90% of the time because the burden of proof and rules of argument are on the prosecutors side. Analytical approaches don't change these systems collective action and some analytical approaches to reconstructing a system where the accused can be seen objectively by his peers.
That's what you would say, and talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The main problem with Postmodernism and it's codified children such as socialism or Marxism, is they are incomplete philosophies. The are completely dishonest in their assessments of the world they frame. They speak only of the negatives of capitalism or the liberal enlightenment societies, and speak only in positives of their own view, and have consistently refused to honestly address critiques such as this (your post, case in point). In fact your view is inherently dishonest and necessarily lies, it is accepted as part of the framework of believing the world is nothing more than a power struggle. The end justify the means, in a nutshell. You will find no shortage of criticisms of capitalism with a capitalist society, nobody claims it's perfect. The self admiration of capitalist societies comes from the fact that as fact was we have measured, it is the best we have come up with, albeit imperfect, and knowing it never will be but designed to be open to correction. Your criticisms of power structures is one of humanity, capitalism. You are intentionally laying the blame of the sin of humans at the system. All this, ironically, is the downfall of socialism because both the lack of accounting properly for the source of sin and simultaneously with this the foolish belief that a utopia of human perfection can be achieved says everything about how poorly thought out and dishonest it is. And it all stems from PoMo, because that Philosophy begs the adherent to ignore any feedback from reality in persuit of their vision of what the world ought to be.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Such an enlightening lecture. This connected a lot of dots and answered so many questions I've had for about 2 years, now.
Take a look at another lecture of his on this topic: the one has charts, etc th-cam.com/video/-BGbHG63x8w/w-d-xo.html
I liked the part about science and post modernists... Here are my thoughts on the same subject.
Science has become the handmaid of progressivism. incapp.org/blog/?p=4376
@@johnpepin5373 pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
@@johnpepin5373 pp0
00
TH-cam should have guided me here years ago. Excellent lecture.
(abridged) th-cam.com/video/Tlsm-VPEk0Y/w-d-xo.html (unabridged) th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
His explanation for why postmodernism came about is what I always suspected and was always the bad feeling I got when thinking about it, but I just didn't know enough so I could connect all these things the way he did in this lecture. But now I know a lot more than I did, so I don't have to just rely on my negative emotions about it.
Marxism and Postmodernism don't directly align on paper due to Postmodernism's presumed rejection of metanarratives, all encompassing theories of how human societies work. Yet in practice, the Postmodernists, as Hicks point out, are remarkably consistent in giving fealty to the NeoMarxist agenda.
I cannot say enough good about Stephen Hicks. I am glad his students at Rockford have him in their lives!
(abridged) th-cam.com/video/Tlsm-VPEk0Y/w-d-xo.html (unabridged) th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
Blistering and brilliant...
This is very interesting in light of the recent videos published by Jordan Peterson. Peterson has delved into the psychology of the postmodernist movement. There is very good support for Dr. Hick's psychological hypotheses in Peterson's lectures. And I believe there are even some psychological studies being conducted by his graduate students on the subject.
(abridged) th-cam.com/video/Tlsm-VPEk0Y/w-d-xo.html (unabridged) th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
Complicated ideas clearly explained. Good job.
Dear Dr. Hicks,
I greatly enjoyed this lecture series. I have been working on a PhD in Leadership Studies at Gonzaga University, and I have been frustrated by the postmodernism of this program. I think that a lot of the denial of science on the left is also about a sort of privileging of faith as a social norm in the humanities. My impression is that this emerged in part because of the political cover academia has needed in the face of Christian ideology here in the west. This in part explains the weird bedfellows we see in Islam and Feminism - both take cover under the privileged status of faith-based belief.
Anyway, my dissertation is on the topic of the psychology of dogmatism. VERY briefly, what I have found is that people make moral claims as well as identity claims around truth claims, which we use to form pseudo-tribal identities around ideological “belonging.” From here we make a judgement that it is unacceptable for us to be mistaken in our belief, if my beliefs are wrong, it becomes a crisis of identity, as well as a moral and social crisis, for me, since my identity is tied into my social support system by this pseudo-tribal identity. To put it succinctly:
I become dogmatic when I decide that it is unacceptable for me to be mistaken.
Conversely:
When I make the unacceptable acceptable, then I am free to choose.
Feminism cooperates with Islam because they have a common enemy. It is certainly absurd feminists ignore the obvious sexism and racism of Islam (which is worse today than in the West at any point in history) because Islam is anti-Western and anti-Christian. But its a marriage of convenience however, temporary cooperation until the common enemy is destroyed, then they will turn on each other, firstly to convert, but finally to annihilate if necessary.
faultroy. How do you know those 30% didn’t all know the same fraudulent scientist?
@faultroy Wait, how do you know the statistic you put forth isn't manipulated? Talk about naivety; how can you try to dismantle the legitimacy of statistical data so broadly while simultaneously using Data as your source to disprove it? Postmodernism at its finest! Contradictory to the point of absurdity.
Presuming that you finished it by now, I would like to read your dissertation. Please let us know if it's anywhere online.
Una maravilla el profesor. A menudo discuto estos temas y necesitaba poner en claro muchos temas. La claridad en los argumentos del profesor es propia de quien adhiere a la ilustración, frente a la enmarañada y obscura trama que caracteriza a la argumentación de los postmodernistas. Gracias Stephen, esperamos más sus libros en español
This video is underrated, should have way more views.
I loved it. I have been watching/listening to a lot of speakers trying to get a better understanding of postmodernism...Mr. Hicks presents a well structured discussion on the topic, from its genesis to today. By exploring the psychology of postmodernists as well as offering debating strategies, he has given me more confidence on the topic and helped reinforce some of the things I am doing to get the word out. Thank you Mr. Hicks.
This was in 1998 ?!?!
It's gotten WORSE !!!!
WORSE !!!!
It's 100X worse now.
Yuri Bezmenov predicted this is *the 1980s!*
There's an old video here on YT from then.
It's just getting worse all the time. . .
It's always darkness before the dawn
Belleville197 Explain what’s bad about it, pls.
twown Explain, pls.
Still be BEST analysis of post modernism!
also to the question of studying the pathology of postmodern intellectuals, the economist Thomas Sowell covers this well
In which book bro?
@@theananyatalkstat5210 the anointed
Best Lecture on every dimension, ever. This should be mandatory for Citizens of our Republic, if we want to keep it.
Building wealth involves developing good habits like regularly putting money away in intervals for solid investments. Instead of trying to predict and prognosticate the stability of the market and precisely when the change is going to happen, a better strategy is simply having a portfolio that’s well prepared for any eventually, that’s how some folks' been averaging 150K every 7week these past 4months according to Bloomberg.
That’s crazy, I’m just doing everything wrong with my portfolio.
The US-Stock Mrkt had been on it’s longest bull-run in history, so the mass hysteria and panic is relatable considering we’re not accustomed to such troubled mrkts, but there are avenues lurking around if you know where to look. My wife and I are retiring this year with over $7,000,000 in tax deferred investments. up until 3 years ago we were 100% in the S&P. During bear markets we had a perfect plan. We got an investment manager in our corner and didn’t look at our portfolio for nearly a year.
Same here, 75% of my portfolio is in the red and I really don’t know how long I can stomach the losses. I’m beginning to reach a breaking point.
Patience patience patience. It's a cycle.... a sucky point in the cycle, but a cycle nonetheless.
Wow, that’s stirring! Do you mind connecting me to your advisor please. I desperately need one to diversified my portfolio.
"Opportunities to confront postmodernism and to advance Enlightenment values are limitless."
Very prescient.
Enjoy the emphasis on the timeline of events and as Tomas Sowell would say "intellectuals' .
Thank you for your well. Reasoned, researched, studied, etc.
Hypothesis.
Excellent!
Excellent talk!
Something we truly need today is a primer on how to deconstruct postmodernism.
Postmoderns get argued into a corner, and deflect to give themselves space to regroup.
If we are to have any hope of combatting this cancer, we as an anti-postmodern community will need to semi-systemize the counterrevolutionary arguments and practices that will not allow the deflection.
Oh, this is good. It's very, very good. Write this on your heart.
15:30 is I think the most important part of this lecture. He points out the insanity and irrationality in the post modern ideology.
I rather liked his section on the resentful destruction carried out by the weakling. Very topical right now.
It occurs to me that whilst Kant may have kickstarted the epistemological subjectivity movement his categorical imperative explicitly refutes the primacy of feelings, putting duty over unreliable compassion
This bloke should be in charge of education in the US.
Once we are sufficiently attracted to anything, reason never prevails. Try for example convincing with reason, a person in love - that their amour will prove a disaster to them...
Thank you for this Post!
To the audience members question at 1:11:30 (about postmodernism's influence in the arts). I am a painter who has spent a great deal of time in shared art spaces, surrounded by artists of all kinds. The connective thread amongst these people is predominantly confusion and nailism.
mugushi54 this same sort of thing happened to the arts earlier with dada
Objective Philosophy doesn't have an answer for aesthetics unless it's basis is in the framework of utility and utility according to who or what? Is it the economy the dominant politic?
The critiques of Capitalism are a kind of paranoia and suspicion of the existential why they where they are? Lifes hard, and Corporations lead logically to mitigating risk which makes life even more, spiritually lacking unless the consumer can be moved into a fantasy realm. Which again makes for a world that seems lacking. But what I find is the world is big of you want to go-to the places where risk is rewarded and punished harshly it's out there, most just avoid that. So Americans have largely embodied the values of the objective work of Corporations.
Nailed it, nailistical outlooks see nothing.
I went to art school in the late '80's -early '90's and found the judgemental nature of the post modernists highly off putting. It looks as though it has only gotten worse since then.
Nihilism
their personal failings are as Rand said, a lack of a psycho-epistemology, no valuation of reason, reality or existence.
Helped me very much to understand the absurdity of today's reality in the West! Postmodernism is Machiavelian. Now it makes sense! Thanks Professor!
An end to postmodernism is an optimistic thought.
From 16:30 - 18:50 there are many parallels with narcissism/gasligting vs codependent.
How long is a generation? This was made 22 years ago, and he predicted postmodernism would be gone in a generation. I doubt he'd make that same prediction in today's atmosphere.
The Smart Weakling : what a genius insight in the mindset of these poisonous individuals.
Dude you kicked some serious ass! I'm gonna have to think long and hard about that. XLNT!
There is a governing dynamic within which enlightenment successes are constructed. There is something outside reason that validates it as it’s exercised within a larger ordered framework, the scientific method is anchored to a pre existing ordered creation in which reason is an attribute in its discovery and understanding. The historical context of the enlightenment is not the ultimate context of the enlightenment. We must not apply a time of human ignorance to creation itself thus elevating reason above creation.
"and in a climate of subjectivism, some irrational movement will arise to take advantage of it"
Hoooo boyo, that prescience...
2 irrational movements at once. Corona Apocalypse, and Racism Apocalypse
@@immaculatesquid I agree with your analysis. But on the other side, there are a new wave of idiots in the form of the Q-anon religion.
@@keegster7167 i think the ratio is like 100-1 racism and corona fear porn vs qanon
Pure gold here
But it would behove thee, Sir, to give more credit and thanks to Miss Rand for her priceless contribution on these topics/issues. Her influence upon you is very obvious (and please believe me, that's meant to be High Praise indeed!) Regards, Rob
15:30. Envy is the relevant idea and motivator.
Brilliant!!!
I’ve just watched this is 2024 and it’s scary how accurate Hicks was. It’s far, far, far worse.
I’m not a fan of postmodernism, but when Hicks mentions creationists argue that nobody knows the absolute truth, or when he mentions religion was basically taking a hit in the 1700s I believe he should have mentioned Christianity specifically. Because there are other religions that didn’t suffer the enlightenment ideologies as Christianity did, nor are Christians the only theists out there!
I think when he says religion he means Christianity as it's Western Society in which Christianity is the main religion!
Oh boy, did he get that last one wrong (unfortunately) - postmodernism is alive and well.
What people believe to be true largely depends on (is relative to) the ends those beliefs serve and the circumstance they find themselves in. Our relation to truth is oriented towards production and capital or material gains, things that can be recorded and verified - in this way, we pretend to fully detach truth from ourselves for the moment but ultimately (and perhaps ironically) because we have found that treating truth in this way generally satisfies our needs and our desires as individuals and as a culture.
It is possible to overcome your own perspective/biases - the result, however, is never ideology but rather case by case action based on the best information available. Broad sweeping generalisations will not be relevant to such an actor/thinker.
@@tonyjames8805 Right, but the reasons we use for deciding whether or not to adopt this framework of truth is ultimately rooted in bias.
@@Havre_Chithra There is no framework for truth, there is no consideration for truth at all. That is the fallacy of what we seem to do. Truth is some idea/meme trap. There are only actions. Once the mythical quest for truth is abandoned, what can be rooted in bias. What can be bias? Bias is a trap itself. A statement that x is biased is a statement that x does not see truth and acts contrary to truth. In reality, there was only action and dissapproval by another who wants to say x is biased. I am forever bemused (and often amused) at the attempts by humans to analyse themselves. Truly, the only way to look inside yourself is to have your head up your a$$ :-) We, like every other atom in the universe follow an unfathomable path. Whilst we have had success in applied science by the use of thought and reason, outside of this 2000 years of writing drivel has produced nothing. Any advancement (perceived to be so anyway) can be traced to practical real world events and developments and not to art, humanities or the like.
@@tonyjames8805 I don't think that's true. There's a clear consideration for truth (or at least as close as it can be approximated) in a lot of the frameworks that people adopt - e.g., the scientific method.
Other frameworks of truth (e.g., religion) are still concerned with truth, arguably to a much lesser degree, and so too approximate it to a lesser degree.
The reasons people have, and why people adopt the frameworks they do (and whether or not people are more or less concerned with approximating something close to truth) comes down to the desires and goals of individuals and the cultures they find themselves attached to.
Ryan G I agree - people do as you say, my point is that it is misconceived. Even in science the point is not truth in the real sense but rather successful prediction, which in mechanistic systems is achievable. Elsewhere it really isn’t and so action without overlays of truth are, in my view, more appropriate. I have spent my life since University exfoliating truths and frameworks (deprogramming myself) to live by naked, in the moment decision making. I continue to function - just without delusion. Each morning I decide to go to work or not and have numerous times just radically changed everything in my life. I am no longer burdened by frameworks or truth. Guess what ? Nothing bad has come from this abandonment.
Hist last statement is such a prophecy for todays pc and cancel culture
I think self interest always rules our actions and guides our trajectories. The evolution of Postmodernism is largely the result of population explosion: World population in 1650, or so, was 500 million,
by 1850 it was 1 billion, by 1930 it was 2 billion, by 1975 it was 4 billion, today it is 7.2 billion and climbing. Everyone demands satisfaction, and there is never closure on this demand. The greater the number of people,the greater the the collective thirst for it. The more convenience and comfort, the less incentive to inquire, and the greater the existential burden of self contemplation.
The elimination of any need to inquire or to solve problems ( thanks to science and technology) leaves us a world in which "equality" is the last frontier - one in which standards must dissolve,
in which case, the more elite minds and characters will have to segregate themselves...maybe, someday soon, on the Moon...
That is very wise. I believe this lust for equity posing as equality will end with a one world government. Hopefully I will be long dead before that time though, as centralized power over 7 continents will not go well for anyone.
Professor Hicks, great lecture. I just disagree modern creationists don't want to suppress evolution but want a fair hearing of creation in the public sphere. If we all agree free speech is important as is freedom of religion/belief (even free to be an atheist), no-one will shut others down. Christians who have thought this all through do not want a theocracy anymore than a socialist politically correct dictatorship - as could be equally bad.
@Seven V And what is atheism/evolution then - why is that not indoctrination? When only one view of anything is pushed and no other permitted - is that not indoctrination? Why not let people hear all sides, just evidence even for historical events claimed eg. Flood and weigh up to see which worldview/belief best it supports or do you fear Materialism can no longer stand up on it's own given what we now know about even simplest cell -being too complex for random evolution? That there is mind apart from brain (experiments on coma patients -refer Michael Egnor). Several examples of complexity and universe theories have changed, always changing.
Cogent and descriptive.
Maybe the best lecture I have ever heard, and I have heard hundreds of objectivist lectures. I do disagree on one point though: there is almost never a reason to argue with a post modernist as more than 99.9% of them are dishonest and will not change their minds no matter how badly they lose. As they reject reason you can never reach them with reason. The only way to deal with them is by using force. To use force against those who reject reason is sometimes legitimate, even if they have not initiated force themselves.
Chris Collin
That is not a legitimate use of force.
They're wrong. Ok. Being wrong, and stubbornly so, does not necessitate the use of force. I don't know why it would. The goal is not to convince them, it's to discredit them. Using force gives them more credit than they deserve.
Using force to convince them will not work, but they could be forced over time from their places of power by not replacing them when they retire.
Damn right Dodo
Of course it does because Postmodernist neo progressive ideology explicitly encapsulates the concept of revolutionary social warfare. They need putting down. Hard.
Why do you need force when arguments such as this one by Prof. Hicks will weaken them overtime.
Brilliant.
There is a post-postmoderism in Ken Wilber's Integral Pluralism. What I've heard here is all excellent but these two world views can be reconciled preserving the best of both.
I'm surprised that Nietzsche is somewhat of an icon of the postmodernist movement. The postmodernist movement seems to be the personification of his concept of herd morality - the direct opposite.
Prof HIcks was amazing prescient - mostly. But post-modernism combined with intersectionality may end the American Republic. Which will be the end of post-modernism and all the self-entitled demands.
Did you notice he says "mkay" ALL the time?! He reminded me of Mackey from South ParkXD
Postmodernism is bad, mkay?
Genius.
I totally agree with his destruction of the socialist arguement. I also accept his argument that socialist opportunistically use postmodernism as a tool to advance their politics. But I can't shake the feeling that he linked socialism and postmodernism to create a straw man arguement as he never tackled postmodernism directly. Also, its unclear that we actually function as a capitalists society and not a monopolistic oligarchy.
What's so fabulous about 'reason'? Should we profoundly disagree it's still likely we'll both push our reasons - surely, no one is arguing that postmodernists are any different to their opponents with regard to the modus vivendi of argument?
Additionally, as if this isn't serious enough, what's so fabulous about 'facts'?
Aren't they too, along with 'reason' and 'reasonability' - at least in some of the most
crucial epistemological contexts - like beauty, also in the eye of the beholder?
It’s more correct to say post modernist take a personal leak of feeling (not faith) in justifying their beliefs. At least from a Christian biblical perspective, subjectivism and relativism epitomizes faithlessness.
Heidegger's claims about will and emotion triumphing over logic, reason, evidence, and reality itself is best evidenced with trans ideology.
This lecture is from 1998, right? That’s over 25 years ago. Some of his predictions have held, but not the one about postmodernism’s eventual disintegration-if anything, the opposite has happened, and the idiocy has gotten worse and holds more sway than ever, as well as become manifest in popular culture.
I guess I am just too old and ultra - conservative, but I find it offensively Postmodernist for members of the audience to address Professor Hicks as "Stephen."
But then, the beauty here is that the truly great magically beget the presumption of peerage in their beholders...
This is what wikipedia says. Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form-a work of art-that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.
I disagree with this on a few points. The basic idea that objective reality is a real thing that can be perceived is basically sound. However, I think she fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents Christianity. I also think her notions on Art are nonsense. Art can do what she is asking, but Art can do many things. Art is subjective, mostly, some extremes of certain artist output not withstanding. She seems to be negating the value of abstraction or conceptual art. Art may have an interaction with philosophy on certain grounds but Art is more like theater. Now granted, post modern in art has created some things that are maybe not that great, but much that is still very interesting. Art allows for a vastness of experiences and perspectives. That is a good thing, because creativity does assert individualism, values, morals. Art, even when it seeks to negate things can not help but be something.
Rational self interest and the pursuit of happiness is basically sound, but I don't know if I would characterize that as the moral purpose of life. the purpose of life is perhaps subjective, and up to an individual, but it could be seen that that the purpose of life is for humans to come to the fullness of knowledge of God. Without God and values and morals the pursuit of happiness can become grotesque.
By what means do you come to have knowledge of god? It certainly isn't through evidence and reason, which means some alleged alternative to reason (faith/mysticism) or something additional (faith/mysticism) that, when there is a conflict between it and reason faith/mysticism trumps reason. I think Rand understood this perfectly clearly.
Why do you package god and values and morals as if it is obvious or self-evident that they all go together somehow? You realize non-religious people value things don't you? You realize non-religious people can be moral don't you? God is not necessary for either values or morals, and I would argue that belief in god forecloses the possibility for actual values and morality.
Videographer: Hey! Where are the slides and handouts that he refers to? Also for Part 1? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
This is recorded in 1998
Omg does someone have a link for that Postmodernist argument generator?? I can't breathe.
www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
it generates a new essay every time you load the page
There are some people you either agree with, ignore or shoot.
superb lecture, but he is too hard on Kierkegaard, discounting his powerful critique of Hegel, Further, he seems to conflate irrational creationism and science-based Intelligent design.
I think Hicks could benefit from looking into psychology. Human beings are easily capable of holding beliefs that are irrational. Values that are 'sacred' in one's moral community disinvite rational analysis. I am sure that some postmodernists were as aware of their intentions and behaviour as he asserts, but I am equally sure many looked for post hoc rationalisations of their moral predispositions, without trying to critically analyse the morality too much (since that would be heretical). Admitting this poses problems for the power structure and exploitation worldview, of course, since it is another reason that one might support one person being inferior to another in some way that doesn't involve one consciously exploiting another (there are obviously other and more important reasons for thinking the exploitation thing is nonsense, but still).
Part 2, yeah...
i guess the onlt thing i really disagreed with was at the end about arts and popular culture , the best art and entertainment in my opinion is post modern it has a subtlety beyond what modernism can express.
Yeah... modernism has no sense of humor BUT at this point in time... I am so tired of ugliness that I began to find neoclassical art refreshing
Modernism has no sense of humor? Have you read James Joyce?
Check out what David Foster Wallace says about postmodernism in art. It's an interesting take.
If by "subtlety" you mean opacity, lacking purpose/rational integration, nonsensical, unintelligible, lacking clarity, and so on, then I agree.
James Joyce epitomizes postmodernism. A sentence filled with neologisms that runs for pages and pages without punctuation is NOT an example of modernism.
I generally agree with Mr. Hicks' points, apart from his point about the Creationism vs. Evolutionism. Setting aside the fact that they are not mutually exclusive, which is not my point, I do not see a reason to consider Creationism as unscientific. You can argue whether Creationism is sufficiently supported, but I can think of one argument supporting its plausibility that has not been disproved: the idea of causality. In order for the idea of causality to exist, there must have existed, ironically, something that breaks the idea of causality by not needing to itself have been caused. You could say that the universe itself, for all we know, meets this definition, but then I would say that the universe then could be the "creator" in Creationism, implying Creationism is a plausible hypothesis. I haven't encountered a mind-changing argument against this plausibility, and so I find it to be still a valid element in the set of scientific hypotheses. However, I seek to improve myself, so I am happy to entertain any reasonable counter arguments to my current thinking.
How did it get into the humanities?
A postmodern cricket!
WE MODERATE THE ABSURD
2015 Stephen Hicks: post modernism won’t last long. 2020: ........?!?!
In fact it was 1989...and today it is everywhere. It is all about POLITICAL CORECTNESS, blaming others, attacking "society", accusing every oponent of beeing a Nazi or a Racist. So: The more important it became to listen to this lecture!!
I just watched a pro postmodernism video, is was loosely understandable, I saw buildings being demolished and the option to comment was switched off, i say no more
15:00
Please everyone pay attention to this part in particular.
Does anyone know about the flowchart visual he's making? (Around 42:20) Any chance someone has redrawn it for youtube like one of those sketched-out big idea channels?
And now we're in 2017
How so “feelings are deeper than Reason?”
I think a Great Course on argumentation and debate, I recommend David Zarefsky, would go a long way for both modernist and postmodernist in navigating the minefield of this topic.
I believe in natural selection as it is taught in the Abeka history books for middle school, a totally Christian curriculum. I don’t agree that creationists reject all of what evolution offers but I’m offended to see that Charles Darwin has a huge room all to himself in Westminster while Elizabeth I’s body with its horrible effigy is stuck into a flea market type section right beside the lovely effigy of Mary Queen of Scots. It makes one wonder if it’s not better to die young. Is that the message the British people want to communicate? Since Darwin had very little formal education and died without ever finding the missing link which is the only thing that might justify his ideas.
A non literal reading of the New Testament does not require reason to be crucified. Which is ironic because Jesus as a symbol of truth or reason was indeed crucified. And truth/reason will resurrect and defeat the anti-Christ or anti-truth that is post-modernism.
Great lecture. I have to take exception with his using Christian naturalism in the enlightenment as a comparison to Socialism in the modern day, although I understand the sentiment.
The enlightenment brought about a way to view the world that was radically different from the way people saw the world before. Christianity or otherwise, the epistemology before the materialist/rational paradigm was so different as to be alien to us today. We often make the mistake thinking it was something like modern young Earth creationism, which is not the case. People didn't see the Bible as some sort of science but with God.
Socialism is a framework born within the darker side OF the materialist/rationalist framework.
So I find it a poor choice to draw that parallel in the context of his point. The enlightenment was changing the focus of the primary epistemological framework for society, which is at a much more fundamental level, and is why to this day Christianity has not been "proven" out of existence, they actually don't overlap when you understand what they both are attempting to answer.
I would say that Socialism is the inevitable outcome of the Enlightenments eschewing of religion, because it is/was a misguided attempt to answer the moral (religous) issues humans still contended with through the rational/materialist framework.
In less than a minute, Hicks has advanced the (false) meta-argument, that: the essence or gist of postmodernism, is skepticism; which skepticism leads to subjectivity; which subjectivity leads to relativism. Where at each node of this argument, he reductively misrepresents the three crucial nodes of his meta-argument.
In postmodernism, the active postmodernist thinker is surrounded existentially by 'objects' of experience; the grounding or explaining or deconstructing of any particular object of experience, being a somewhat partial and isolated instance within that field. Subjectivity, and more crucially intersubjectivity, is a concept in thinking; the experiential field remains crucially objective in its appearance, even for an active postmodernist. Relativity, while something of an empirical truth, is seldom an experience or an ideology; rather it is a background presumption to postmodernist thinking.
The crucial point which Hicks chooses to ignore, is that multiple philosophies coexist, as long as they have adherents. Even the enlightenment and post modernist projects, come up against the awkward fact and truth of billions of global citizens remain committed to other philosophies. This sociological fact and truth, way more significant than anything academic philosophy might author.
Postmodernism aka Has Philosophy Gone Too Far??
Correction: Kierkegaard was two things, a Socratic, and, to use his term, a "poet" of Christianity. He was NOT arguing for absurdism, or "existentialism." He rejected Hegel, thought he was a fool. And he certainly would be disgusted by and would be mocking relativism if he were alive today. Please stop conflating him with these idiots.
I can't believe he was saying this 5 years ago.
You mean 22 years ago. It says in the description it was in 1998
@@WessGrumble ... Jesus... Fuck... It's my new mission to speak to this man.
ThisnThatPackRat Just infiltrate the left and have them go after video games because they are "white male" fantasies, and porn because it treats women as objects, and you will awake almost every single male age 14-35 instantly, of just how far the left wants to go.
@@immaculatesquid That's already happening though. Without infiltration.
Wess Grumble Slighly. It needs to be more mainstream to generate the backlash needed to stop it once and for all.
Maybe I'm just a moron and don't understand, but I disagree with his glorification of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. While I am pro-capitalism and pro-West, I don't think Objectivism is sufficiently sophisticated as to be the exemplar of anti-relativism or anti-subjectivism. There are ways in which Rand's philosophy is contradictory. For example, the steadfast adherence to free-market capitalism and the steadfast adherence to objective reasoning are not always compatible. Personally, I think Ayn Rand was so traumatized by the horrors of Marxist philosophy that she swung too far in the other direction. I've read Ayn Rand's work, and her central moral axiom is that if everyone takes care of themselves, then everyone is taken care of. I know that's an oversimplification, but not so much that I feel it would invalidate my counter-position. The problem is that life and community are just way more complicated than that, and rational self-interest is only one of many necessary moral tools. It is not _the_ moral tool, it is _a_ moral tool, and its applicability is not universal. For example, while Rand does cover and rightfully give credit to the auto-corrective forces of the market, she doesn't really cover the fact that the forces are reactionary, and that this can actually pose a serious problem. She doesn't sufficiently address the fact that externalities must take place before market forces can react, and that this is not always the optimal strategy. Roughly speaking, capitalism needs boundaries that act as preventative measures, because the corrective forces of the market are primarily reactionary and slow to move. For example, if a highly developed company is spilling toxic waste into a river, the market may very well boycott the company until the company adopts new practices (and discovering that such practices are taking place requires transparency that isn't compulsory under the sort of free-market capitalism for which Rand advocates to begin with). However, that's nevertheless reactionary, and necessitates a certain degree of damage already being done before the correction could be made. However, if the state mandates harsh penalties for such practices and provides acceptable parameters and measures to which the company must adhere from the beginning, the damage suffered may very well be minimized. Now, I realize that this kind of state intervention can swing hard toward totalitarianism and even Marxism if given enough slack. But, that's why all Western countries have constant debate, hundreds of political meetings per day, between liberals and conservatives. You have to maintain a dialogue about justifiable state intervention so the society doesn't collapse into free-market anarchy or socialist dystopia. You have to walk the line of rationality between two competing and often mutually-exclusive epistemological frameworks. Sometimes the conservatives are right, and sometimes the liberals are right. Liberals are wrong more often, sure. But that's because it's their job to spit out new ideas as a matter of course, and most new ideas end up being terrible, haha. Post-modernism is a good example of a terrible liberal-left idea. Personally, this is why I find moderate to moderate-conservative political commentators the most compelling. They walk the line that Rand largely ignored in her writings, and it reflects in their discourse. It reflects in their willingness to even have the discourse to begin with.
Is it logical to have state intervention in certain situations? Yes, obviously. Is it logical for the state to stay the hell out of the market in certain situations? Yes, obviously. For example, I'm an advocate of healthy eating, and one of the lecturers I enjoy listening to has taken responsibility for happy-meal toys being banned in several American states. Personally, this disgusts me. That is not the sort of market control I feel is acceptable. It doesn't matter if I _feel_ like McDonald's is garbage food. They have the right to advertise and sell their products as they wish. Now, if there was state intervention to make sure that McDonald's wasn't dumping their fryer grease into the river near my home, I'd say that was perfectly justified. I mean, ideally you'd want to figure out a way for environmental consideration to be profitable in and of itself, but until we get there it would be foolish not to have preventative measures firmly in place. But, for the state to decide the conditions around which a parent can buy a toy for their child is beyond grotesque in this example.
Does innocence imply objectivity?
Is there a transcript for this anywhere?
My (admittedly uneducated on this issue) view is that postmodernism is in essence a made up term which can be loosely defined as any intellectual attempt to question the established norms whether on the basis of morality, values or even strictly factual accuracy. Besides, the repeated (and likely intentional) conflation of terms such as socialism and communism just speaks further to the arbitrary nature of biases which inform the speaker's point of view. While it does make an entertaining exercise in sophistry, it offers little to advance a better understanding of clear distinction between what is to be deemed objective versus subjective w.r.t. holistic vantage point that is congruent with the notion of absolute truth and universal reality.
A seemingly great lecture, though I am unqualified to have a meaningful opinion. One concern however is his interpretation of Duchamp's Fountain, which is troubling in its literalness and simplicity, going so far as to ignore a good deal of context. Secondly, while De Kooning did paint an abstract version of the Mona Lisa, the work Hicks speaks of is again by Duchamp, titled L.H.O.O.Q., and again literal and overly simplistic. This may seem trivial but it illustrates a shortfall in his research and raises the question, how many flaws are there in the rest of his research? Thoroughness matters. That being said, his background is philosophy not art history so perhaps his dissection of philosophy is more complete. This is not the first time in which I have encountered philosophers failing to exercise due humility in the interpretation of art or art history, a field no less deep and complex as his own.
His dissection of the philosophy is very incomplete as well. I noticed as well how he misrepresented the dadas. It was a joke! They were trolls. And all this speculation about deeper mythologies behind Duchamp's misadventures by art theorists after the fact totally misses the point.
There's so much bias and motivated reasoning in this presentation that it becomes hard to separate the valid from the encindiary. Too many false causes, false dichotomies and appeal to consequence fallacies. At the end there is a little lesson on winning debates not by valid argumentation but through rhetoric. Counteractivism?
I'm going to see if I can find his critique on theory ladened propositions. Not expecting much though, just in case he surprises me with a good argument.
Academic ivory tower watchmen are such a bore. The Post-modernist are just saying what is literally happening to alot of people. My friends current boyfriend will have to go-to jail for crime he didn't commit simply because the charges were filled and pursued and the risk his attorney feels is unbalanced in the prosecutors favor. He made a logical desicion rather than an absurd leap and will now go to jail for 2yrs. This happens 90% of the time because the burden of proof and rules of argument are on the prosecutors side. Analytical approaches don't change these systems collective action and some analytical approaches to reconstructing a system where the accused can be seen objectively by his peers.
th-cam.com/video/EHtvTGaPzF4/w-d-xo.html
12:58
so I would now have something to reference age of sophistry
So is Hicks a devotee of the 2025 PLOT?
This speech was delivered in *1998.*
Do you have any capacity to perceive the world beyond what your programmers told you to believe, love, and hate?
One-sided arguments for a self-admiration society frustrated by abiding alternatives to their world view
That's what you would say, and talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
The main problem with Postmodernism and it's codified children such as socialism or Marxism, is they are incomplete philosophies. The are completely dishonest in their assessments of the world they frame. They speak only of the negatives of capitalism or the liberal enlightenment societies, and speak only in positives of their own view, and have consistently refused to honestly address critiques such as this (your post, case in point).
In fact your view is inherently dishonest and necessarily lies, it is accepted as part of the framework of believing the world is nothing more than a power struggle. The end justify the means, in a nutshell.
You will find no shortage of criticisms of capitalism with a capitalist society, nobody claims it's perfect. The self admiration of capitalist societies comes from the fact that as fact was we have measured, it is the best we have come up with, albeit imperfect, and knowing it never will be but designed to be open to correction. Your criticisms of power structures is one of humanity, capitalism. You are intentionally laying the blame of the sin of humans at the system.
All this, ironically, is the downfall of socialism because both the lack of accounting properly for the source of sin and simultaneously with this the foolish belief that a utopia of human perfection can be achieved says everything about how poorly thought out and dishonest it is. And it all stems from PoMo, because that Philosophy begs the adherent to ignore any feedback from reality in persuit of their vision of what the world ought to be.
Nice, succinct, true. The praises in these comments make me cringe.
I really wish they had moved the microphone away from the ok ok ok guy!
Is faith and feelings the same thing?
No.
both right and wrong at the same time
His chart from Part 1: www.stephenhicks.org/2013/10/28/defining-modernism-and-postmodernism-chart/
24:43 Literary cricket.