Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 00:00 A Tale of Two Worldviews 00:47 Modernity 05:04 Postmodernity
I love that your videos do not fail to include different things that different people with different ideologies agree or may not agree. You make it more educational and less of a ideological proganda. I've never been able to figure out what ideologies you follow 😂 which is why I love it, you don't include your biases.
I disagree. To say that "modernity had failed" by the middle of the 20th C, by selectively highlighting certain negative impacts of technological advancement, is the language of the Marxist. In reality it was marxism that had failed. 100 years after the publication of the Communist manifesto, it's predictions had spectacularly failed to materialise. Rather than the middle class collapsing into poverty it was booming, and the West was experiencing prosperity like it never had. Meanwhile, in 1956 two events highlighted the failure of Communism. Firstly, there was the highly publicised uprising in Hungary, and secondly, Kruschev laid bare the horrors of Stalin. In short, they could no longer hide the failure of Marxism, and so it was repackaged as postmodernism - the rejection of facts and logic, as if we used those we'd reject socialism, in all its forms out of hand. And now it has bared its teeth - you can thank postmodernism for the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in, where (as one of many examples I could give) it is now controversial to say that men and women are different. In simplest terms, postmodernism is nothing more than repackaged Marxism.
Wonderful video. I love learning how philosophy fits into grand historical narratives and zeitgeists. It reminds you how ideas which shape the world are a product of their times and the enduring will of the human spirit and intellect. In that sense there is always room and arguably a need for philosophy and philosophers.
I appreciate the video. My understanding of postmodernism is somewhat different, so I’m going to try to articulate how, and see if anyone has a response. It seems to me that postmodernism’s definition is much larger than the one you’ve presented here. Although it definitely is concerned with the balance of power and organization of societies, to me it is particularly distinguished by the lack of faith in objective truth. It is cynical in the sense that it criticizes most attempts at explanation for why human affairs should be organized in any particular way. And it seems to always point at the power structures behind the scenes, and says that power creates its own logic. But it does not seem to provide any viable alternative. The point of view of postmodernism eliminates the idea that a ‘proper’ way to organize is possible. And this is not to say it is wrong, but I sensed a judgement call in your definition of it. Relating to this, I find that the connectivity and accessibility of information in today’s world has furthered the postmodern condition. We find that we’re not standing on such solid ground, in our understanding of ‘truth’, and that much of it is determined by our environment and emotions, etc. I’m interested to hear about this ‘next phase’, but I’m skeptical of the suggestion that these developments have been positive in the way that you seem to imply.
Sadly, the video follows and assumes the biased framework of postmodernity (and actually what i just refer to as modernity, lol). The bias is that while the old order of the "white Christian heterosexual, able bodied male" is being torn down, along with their traditional, western presuppositions, the new order denies it's own claims and intentions, specifically that it is a aesthetic value within a hierarchy of values. The current philosophical left cannot just label itself another orthodoxy with values of their own.
I would make a subtle but important distiction. Postmodernism is not a direct challange to 'objective truth' or 'absolute truth'. It is a radical skeptism towards ideologues knowledge claims of this type of truth. One can still say 'absolute truth' is unknown but somethings are more true than others.
I like your comments and points therein, but quickly point to our very discussion here as a counter to “furthering the postmodern condition”. I find relatively solid ground right here, on this platform, and see that you do too as well:)
To the comments this far, and James please feel free to delete my post as it has a link in it to After Skool’s video, but the video addresses our discussion here and may give some impetus to a future video here by our very own Living Philosopher (or at least I hope so) th-cam.com/video/raJn6guy-uQ/w-d-xo.html
“My earlier argument that postmodernism is a deteriorated version of the Enlightenment is entirely compatible with the present assertion that postmodernism explicitly rejects the Enlightenment because of theoretical extremism. Postmodernism is the Enlightenment [i.e. modernity] gone mad. In human affairs, madness takes the role of contradiction in logic; anything follows. One consequence of the madness of theoretical extremism is that an ostensible repudiation of Platonism is itself a version of Platonism, that is, of Platonism as it is, not as it is imagined to be.” ― Stanley Rosen.
Mankind looks up to him who is thus gifted for disclosures about nature of things and his own nature. A man’s nature is in harmony with itself when he desires to be nothing but what he is. What a man is is nothing but the manifestation of his will is in fact what he wills
As a lover of the Great Romanticists from Blake through to Yeats to Tolkien and Kathleen Raine, I don't know which I loath most: Modernism, or Post- Modernism!
Metamodernism: - A synthesis of postmodernism and modernism - It believes that we can progress and that we can find the truth and the best way to live, while still retaining the skepticism towards totalising answers - This skepticism is a result of openness to ideas, which has made accepting an idea as true seem less plausible as there are more idea that now must be false for it to be true as well evidence that contradicts it.
Sounds like, perhaps, metamodernity is the great Order/Chaos balance humanity has been waiting for. We drug ourselves out of chaos, into order, and now there is too much. Gotta have more emotion connected to our outlooks in these regards. Otherwise, we risk leaving part of our humanity at the door if not already.
Oooh love that Brehvon. The whole thing with metamodernism as we'll see is that it's all about an oscillation so I think you are sensing something quite accurate there. Curious to hear your thoughts on next week's video!
Good video. My criticism here would be that postmodernism doesn't really "fight for" anyone or anything. For that, you might be referring to critical theory, which is inherently political. Postmodernism if mostly just defined by a suspicion of universals and metanarratives, whatever they may be. In that way, it can be left wing as easily as right wing, as long as it has the right amount of scorn for any truth that isn't merely context dependent.
It's totally absurd to call modernism naive and failing!! To see the achievements of modernity, you should compare the situation in a modern society and a pre-modern society. Being born in the middle east and immigrating to Europe in the age of 28, I assure you the modernity works great. Sure, there are still complexities for women, sexual minorities and (the unnecessary construct of) people of color. Yet if you compare the situation of women, sexual minorities and ethnical minorities in the middle east, for instance, the difference is obvious. Reducing these differences to cultural relativism the postmodern suggests, is however a fatal betrayal to the liberty and the equality it claims to pursue. It means that the 'brown' women are (culturally) less women to have their autonomy like the western women and 'brown' sexual minorities are even worthless to exist (It's a death penalty for being gay in many middle eastern countries!!!) because there is different culture in their countries and hence irrelevant to even discuss, which means criticizing other cultures. Yet, they are also women and gays and women and gay rights, liberties and equalities are objective and universals like the scientific truth the same postmodernism denies. These universals are deduced from the individuality the enlightenment suggests as the unit of value comparing to other collectivist/tribal values ruled the world for thousands of years before enlightenment. After all, people vote with their feet. If the modernity were a failure and the naive cultural relativism were fruitful all the delusional postmodernists would flee from western democratic societies to say middle east not vice versa. Empirically, no system in the history was as fruitful as enlightenment and modernity. Modernity is a journey not a station to pass by. It has various stages and it's progressing with incremental changes. It's like a tree growing. PS.: English is not my primary language. I hope I could clarify my thought understandable though!
"Modernity is a journey not a station to pass by." Well-stated. Human progress is a continuum, not a destination. Modernism hasn't failed man; man has failed Modernism by occasionally abandoning its tenets of reason, knowledge, education and progress.
The adventure of life is to learn what I find interesting and remember what matters to me. To me, Fighting means conquering my self because the most difficult fight is the fight against my self since I am my greatest enemy
Without knowledge There is no meditation because Without meditation There is no knowledge; He who has knowledge and meditation is near unto nirvana- that blessed state of heavenly calm obtained by expiation.
He forgot to tell you that the postmodernist philosophers were pedophiles. Postmodernism side effects are a paralogic feedback loop that degenerates a hierarchy into chaos. Carl Jung's psychology is a much better philosophy to sort out reality.
I would recommend Hanzi Freinacht's "The Listening Society" where I'm pretty sure he goes in depth on all this. There's also Ken Wilber's work either A Theory of Everything or A Brief History of Everything where he also goes into this through the lens of a developmental model called spiral dynamics
Jesse Lee Peterson would like to have a word with your supposition that black people were oppressed in the 1950's and 60's. He would assert that they are far more oppressed today, intellectually and socio-economically, than they were during those times, and that the Civil Rights movement was actually the beginning of the end of their betterment.
Modernism = hard core atheists vs POST Modernism = hard core paganists and nihilists, This is the difference. Materialism of course in both epochs. This is the real dif. Atheism is dying being replace by the 2 new cults nihilism/paganisms. RIP humanity.
I understand it wasn't the point of the video, but in passing you mentioned that to call blacks of the 1960s even second class citizens is ludicrous. I fully agree that race relations were not where they should be then, just as they aren't now, but I think that a bit extreme. (Civil rights, on the other hand, are where they should be. There is not a law codified in America that singles out any minority for discrimination.) I think sometimes the problems of America are over-amplified because no one criticizers her more often, more harshly and more loudly than her own citizens. Some of the criticism is warranted, some is a bit much and some is extremist nonsense. All get a megaphone from our press, especially the critics. This is why Xi Jinping, president of China, felt no shame in criticizing US human rights violations, while at the same time imprisoning and murdering ethnic minorities in his own country. He had current US press clippings to justify it, too. Also, America has a far more diverse society than any other on earth. One would expect some problems. And for many of the nations in Europe who have a nearly homogenous population by comparison, well, perhaps they should let up on us a bit. And I must add that despite the allegedly deplorable conditions for minorities in America, they still are sacrificing all to get here and are streaming across our borders. And we let them. PS And lastly, sorry, you said nothing to deserve that rant.
As a literary professor with some specialization in Postmodernism, I think you did a great job at summarizing Modernism/Postmodernism in just 10 minutes. Well done.
@@jose.montojah, yes I am up to date with Metamodernism. (Whether 'Metamodernism' is in fact a Zeitgeist, like Modernism and Postmodernism was, is questionable. Other terms to consider are Post-postmodernism, Hypermodernism, and Transmodernism.)
Funny how the actions of the postmodern philosophers had a dark sexuality. It seems that the postmodernist had an agenda to justify their dark sexuality, pedophilia.
Post modernism is a fad only followed by the elite. No reasonable normal believes sterilizing children is empowering or gender affirming. Sane people don't believe all the evils in the world comes from capitalism and only a fool lets others do their thinking for them. Because, unlike the elite who live in echo chambers insulated from the real world, we know first hand that fire burns and water wets... "And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins, As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn, The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
Im not sure theres a compelling postmodern argument for the moral good of advocacy for the disadvantaged. The purpose seems aimed at critique of existing power structures. For example: In this video Dr King argues that Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are good things that he wants for his people. He says the agreement was that his people could have them, and that the current systems are failing to garauntee those rights. Its not that the, archtipically modern, values are invalid, but that the system isnt working in a way that lives up to them, and things can be better. Its a aspirational argument to honor modenlrn values. The factory is providing a product that deviates from spec. Looks modern to me. The video uses this as a critique of modernism, and while Dr. King is criticizing society, the criticism is that society isnt succeeding in its aspirations to meet that modern standard. The intention is the illustrate a critique of modernism, but uses something that targets an implementation rather than the aims. The clip actually endorses those aims and deems them desirable for all. I understand the utility of this sort of critique, but Im not sure it offers more than a means to alter systems rather than a better set of goals for those systems.
Great summarization. It sounds like Dr King was pointing people back to the promises of modernity. Not attempting to over throw it. Perhaps this is what postmodernist did but then backdoor’d a bunch of nonsense as well.
The critical race theorists apparently disagreed entirely with Dr. King. They never wanted equality for blacks, because then the revolutionary goal (the neo-Marxist one) would have lost its momentum because black people wouldn't be resentful.
BUT Postmodernity was GRAND NARRATIVES -- on steroids. Language ever unbounded, standardless, reams and realms of endless semantics, epistemologies, obsessed with POWER PLAYS folding inwards all margins... the empathetic revolutionaries of factiousness, falsification and veiling fanaticism? :)
I think postmodernists would claim they are speaking for the oppressed. But they are so convinced of their own virtue that they don’t notice it’s mostly liberal movements that have paved the way for equality in the past century. Not postmodernism.
Modernism did not fail. It's fundamental tenets are reason, knowledge, education and progress. It gave us classical liberalism with Natural law & rights, Individual worth, Private property, Consent of the governed (suffrage), and Limited government (no plenary powers). The failures of Communism, Fascism, and other injustices of the past century weren't due to Modernism itself, but the failure to adhere to those fundamental tenets of classical liberalism. Blaming the tragedies of the 20th century on Modernism is a straw man argument.
Yeah I agree. This video presents as fact the argument that modernity failed - it didn't. Communism failed, and there was nothing left to aim towards for that type of progressivism. So they became bitter, resentful, and sought to unite the minority, rather than the worker majority into the new proletariat. The rest is PR.
Das road to hell is paved with good intentions because ignorance is even more dangerous than evil intentions. Nothing is more precious than Independent Freedom Happiness is impossible because happiness is das absent of happiness since there is no happiness higher than rest. Break the flower tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again. Painful is birth; Painful is death; Painful is birth and death over and over again. He who crosses over to the other shore becomes arhat; Other people run up and down on this shore from death to death.
Great video as usual. For the record, the Delacroix painting featured at 1:46 (La Liberté guidant le peuple) doesn't depict the 1789 revolution but the 1830 one.
Right you are sometimes I use anachronistic paintings because they do so well at painting the picture and some people outwit me with their deep knowledge of art!
The biggest problem I have with postmodernity is that it's cynicism makes it hypocritical in that it skews the other way- where modernity obviously favoured the "straight, white, wealthy" demographic, postmodernism actively discriminates against these people in an effort to "balance the scales" rather than trying to bring everyone up to that level. Increasing amounts of people are skeptical of the newer ideas of equity and social justice, and these people are being vilified by the "old guard" postmodernists, but I think (hope) we will move further towards genuine ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as these are very noble things which we shouldn't abandon with the hasty, detestable cynicism and nihilism thay has been fostered within postmodern schools of thought.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. One's success in life is not dependent upon one's ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, but on one's values and work ethic. There are women, gay men, and people of all ethnicities who are successful because they did what they needed to do to be successful. If I am more successful than my black neighbor, it's not because I or white society deprived him of the means or opportunity to also be successful. In actual fact, my black neighbor is more successful than me because he has a PhD. in Biology while I have an MEd. He works two jobs as an adjunct professor and for our county's agricultural extension, while I take my summers off recovering from another year of eighth graders. I agree fully with your second paragraph.
But the postmodernism taken to its axiom… it leads towards “criticism in order to do what?” I am not seeing the end, where postmodernism leads to the next modernism. In early Chinese times, Confucius was similar to today’s modernism and Lao Tzu was postmodernism. While Lao Tzu was important, my main question was “to what end?” Perhaps it is my modernist viewpoint, but I don’t see postmodernism as anything much beyond criticism of modern philosophy.
You claim in this video that Post Modernism asserts that, "the dream of modernity was dead" and, Post Modernism "was [is, since the philosophy is still being practiced, largely, by present-day academicians] fulfilling the dreams of its predecessor." To this, I have two queries. 1) How is it possible that Modernism failed when the philosophy never charges itself to terminate? Specifically, Modernism acknowledges that it is an ongoing process with ideals, not any set specific goal. 2) Please cite examples where the application of Post Modern philosophy has in practice succeeded in ANY of the goals stated at the end of the video. Especially knowing that Post Modernism was not the impetus, for example, in driving the United States' Civil Rights Movement.
Extraordinary in the level of bias that this video doesn’t even try to hide. Lemme guess.. you are a postmodernist. And, of course, as a postmodernist, you don’t believe in objectivity- so why be objective?? This was 12 min of postmodern propaganda.
Thank you so much for such a compelling explanation of these confusing and uneasy to formulate and describe topics ! I wonder if you can further explain one aspect that I haven't fully understood : Modernism - ideology, end of slavery , women's rights . Postmodernism - end of big ideology (big narrative ) but also an attempt to continue fight for the minority rights including a broader spectrum of them? Is it fair enough to say that postmodernism was also concerned about"fighting for the rights " as modernism did , but with a different attitude , having no hopes in bright future whatsoever? (Basically, I was a bit confused with this: if you claim that PM was everything that M wasn't, why does it still has this tendency of equality and fight for the rights?)
@@TheLivingPhilosophy @5:40 - you are spreading false propaganda. W men were not ostrocized from the work place. They simply never wanted to be apart of it. This is why there are housewife leeches even today
good video, but it would interesting to hear your perspectives on the failures of post modernism and potential failures of the "metaverse." Failures include the breakdown of the family, drug overdoses, and the deference to corrupt corporations such as nike that enslave thousands.
You make good points. But to what extent are these problems that postmodernity is seeking to ameliorate rather than being at cause for? At least that's what comes to mind with the Nike element. That seems more to do wtih the late stage capitalism so despised by postmodernists rather than something cause by them. One the other hand it would be interesting to explore the breakdown of the family and the problems with addiction because I think that this is more closely related to postmodernity. Nietzsche's God is Dead piece comes to mind because it is the void of nihilism that was the opening shot of postmodernity and it is in many ways the eternal problem of postmodernity - how do we find meaning in a world that has none (no objective meaning that is). Might be worthy of its own video Zack you're right
@@TheLivingPhilosophy the way to bring meaning into my life is to devote myself to loving others and to be of service to communities and people that I love; and to create something of beauty and value with love.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy so we blame modernity for inequities and inequality but we can't blame post-modernism for the consequences of uprooting traditional values. Critical difference being that modernity actually sought to (and succeeded in) solving inequalities where as post-modernism actually seeks to uproot tradition. So blame modernity for a problem it didnt create and actually solved but advert responsibility from post modernism for the consequences of a goal they actually sought out to accomplish? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm still working through a chunk of your videos and say that what I'm perceiving as appologism is merely a typical philosophical engagement, and you don't necessarily hold that opinion. But my instincts tell me that you are in fact a postmodernist or at least your views are adjacent to it.
@@ChaBoi777 would you be so kind as to give examples to these traditional values postmodernism is uprooting so that some people including me can understand better?
I find your analysis lacking without any reference to the co-opting of Postmodernism by oligarchs determined to keep the peasants divided and confused.
I don't agree that it had "good aims," nor do I think it "went about it the wrong way." There is no "way" postulated by PM. It is a failure because it is not prescriptive; it offers nothing coherent in place of Modernism.
Having no philosophical background myself, I find your videos really informative. Re. your point at about 7.15 that the balance of power had shifted, but remained in the same demographic profile, is it not true that the transition from monarchs/aristocrats to tycoons/bankers is a change of caste and perhaps ethnicity?
Thanks boc! Much appreciated. I would definitely agree that the caste had changed but I would challenge the claim about the ethnicity being changed. Seems to me that it was the same demographics no? Unless I'm overlooking something. Be curious to hear what's coming to your mind
He forgot to point out that the main philosophers of Postmodernism are pedophiles. Postmodernism side effects are disturbing and causes healthy hierarchies to degenerate into chaos.
Thanks for bringing the concept of metamodernism to my attention. I've been looking for how to systematize my different thoughts and observations on the tension between the two, and that seems to be a great keyword to search for new and inspiring material.
I absolutely love your channel and the work you do, but I have but one request; if you could put a list of book references that helped you understand and shape such topics into these educative videos :) It would be very nice to have access to your reading guide for all the topics you discuss and deepen the horizon of understanding them.
Very well done. Plus, your accent lends to the meta-ambiance. As a grad student in the 1990s, and someone sympathetic to modernity, I was very put off by the esoteric language of post modernism. And I STILL feel that way. I've read and understood Kant, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger, but Foucault and Derrida both lost me near page 5 or 6. Other folks who seemed starstruck by these post-modern big shots universally shied from my questions. You've given an "upshot" account of post-modernism, but is that all there is? Either there's much left to be said, or Foucault talked on and on to say what you have in 5 minutes.
There's no consensus among Postmodernists like Foucault of what Postmodernism even is. Ask 10 intellectuals to define Postmodernism and you'll get 10 completely separate and unique responses. It seems the only consensus among Postmodernists is a scathing critique of rationalism with no counterpoint. What I find most interesting is that while Postmodernists reject rationalism, they seem to employ it over and over again as their go-to means of attempting to define their own concept.
@@Chiefmucka You're welcome to call what I live in a "box" if you're capable of describing that box or what's outside of it, but you won't, because you can't, because Postmodernism is wholly and exclusively subjective. It doesn't change, redefine or add anything of value to objectivity whatsoever. It's a nice little religion.
Really nicely said. But I would add that for those who coined the words of liberty and fraternity were also those deeply suspicious of whether the state could support it. They tried. The answer is no.
Many modernist philosophers, scientists, and writers were predominantly men, and as a result, their work often reflected male-centric perspectives. This led to the exclusion of women and other marginalized groups. Postmodernism's emphasis on deconstructing grand narratives , which includes previously marginalized voices. "Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History"
Great video, thank you for putting these great ideas together. Im trying to better understand the benefits of post-medernism which you touched on... Wouldn't it also be argued that those atrocities caused by modernity could have been caused by not being rational enough? Like following RAND research and not going into Vietnam rather than trying to win an election? Like it seems the quest for power brought on Vietnam, not rational approaches and democracy. Same could be said for Civil Rights... like the legal system was a bunch of honky brits that moved to the south and set up shop in fruit plantations. It wasn't necessarily the age of reason causing it, but rather lawlessness and violence. Post modernity claims to fix all these problems but I don't understand what it has solved is all. Maybe someone knows here.
So the argument is that humanity did not reach modernity yet. Its still riddled with ethnocentrism and aristrocracy, allby taking on different forms during the times. Modernaty itself is Not excluding, ITS the ethoncentrists WHO exclude
From my understanding, Modernity is more of a late 1800 and early 1900 concept. The Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, and early 1800 men were definitely different in art, politics, philosophy, science, religion, and culturally then those in the Progressive Era, Age of Imperialism, Laissez-faire Capitalism, and early 1900 men. I think that the French philosophers to clump an entire century together can be damaging. I do agree that Postmodernity is around the sixties, however, I think, from my understanding of American history and my understanding of European history, making Modernity stretch all the way to the days of the Enlightenment is a bit of a stretch. Nonetheless, what we are looking at is the basic philosophy of Modernity and Postmodernity, which I thank you for explaining.
A small addition: Tractatus’ Wittgenstein said that he had solved all problems of philosophy and yet little had been advanced with it, because of the most important things of ethics and meaning of life nothing could be said
Please name 1 single issue depicted in your video where modernism has failed and postmodernism succeeded. You mentioned very vaguely that somehow Postmodernism has somehow achieved what Moderism couldn't, but fail to provide details. Are women now equal to men in society? What benefit did Postmodernism provide for black people? Are the children of Vietnam now safe from side effects of agent orange? What exactly are Postmodernism's list of achievements aside from creating intellectual bile whose own intellectuals seem to fail at consensus?
So many get so much of postmodernism wrong, mostly by asserting it to be something it most definitely is not (Jordan Peterson)…you got it right. Thank you for the clarity.
Excellent work! So in summary, postmodernity is post common sense. Hopefully folks like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and Richard Heart can get out of this unhealthy societal rut.
I disagree towards the end. Post-modernism is just hailed as ‘the fix’ to modern issues, it doesn’t actually delve into it. And Metamodernism, from what I’ve heard, is not a synthesis of modernity and post-modernity, but a progression of post-modernism.
Michel Foucault identifies a # of traits of Modernity including: • A Questioning or rejection of tradition • The prioritizing of Individualism, Freedom, & Formal Equality • Faith in Inevitable Social, Scientific, & Technological progress • A movement from Feudalism toward Capitalism & the market economy. • Industrialization & Urbanization, • Secularization • The development of the Nation-State, representative democracy, and public education.
In 1986 while working at a Tire plant in Akron Ohio, a coworker was crushed by a 2 ton roll of steel belt. My Union Steward told me "There are people who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who say what the F@ck just happen" Anton "All Weather" Vukovic 1930-1986 RIP
The fact that society isn’t ready to live up to an idea at a particular time does not mean that idea is false or an unworthy endeavor. In fact Jefferson and the other Founders knew all too well that slavery was wrong, however they also knew that the Southern colonies would never join the cause of Revolution if slavery was prohibited at that time. It was the central theme that overshadowed everything in the development of the United States until it finally came to a head in 1861
Here is where it went off the rails. I identified this when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. For the moving clock I visualized a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that Einstein was using equations that showed that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. But, whatever Einstein did, reality still exists. If the clock in the airplane is slower, the pilot will get a faster speed for the airplane. Einstein turned science into a cult based on a miraculous concept. This does not mean that there cannot be one speed for the airplane. Newton only had one speed for the airplane, but he theorized that the two clocks were showing the same time. The way Newton would have resolved the problem of a slower clock would have been to convert the time of one clock to the other, saying that there was a preferred time for the system. What scientists have done since the time of Einstein is to say that a second of time is the building block of the universe, and that a certain number of oscillations of a cesium isotope atom will contract distances, curve space, and otherwise distort reality to conform to the idea that time controls all other parameters of physics because scientists have defined time according to atomic events, and as long as atomic events show different rates of time, they have to be reconciled by distorting reality.
Love the channel? Want early access and other stuff? Check out the Patreon page
💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
⌛ Timestamps:
00:00 A Tale of Two Worldviews
00:47 Modernity
05:04 Postmodernity
Yes, I do, J!
I love that your videos do not fail to include different things that different people with different ideologies agree or may not agree. You make it more educational and less of a ideological proganda. I've never been able to figure out what ideologies you follow 😂 which is why I love it, you don't include your biases.
Hahaha I can't think of higher praise thanks for that!
I disagree. To say that "modernity had failed" by the middle of the 20th C, by selectively highlighting certain negative impacts of technological advancement, is the language of the Marxist. In reality it was marxism that had failed. 100 years after the publication of the Communist manifesto, it's predictions had spectacularly failed to materialise. Rather than the middle class collapsing into poverty it was booming, and the West was experiencing prosperity like it never had. Meanwhile, in 1956 two events highlighted the failure of Communism. Firstly, there was the highly publicised uprising in Hungary, and secondly, Kruschev laid bare the horrors of Stalin. In short, they could no longer hide the failure of Marxism, and so it was repackaged as postmodernism - the rejection of facts and logic, as if we used those we'd reject socialism, in all its forms out of hand. And now it has bared its teeth - you can thank postmodernism for the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in, where (as one of many examples I could give) it is now controversial to say that men and women are different.
In simplest terms, postmodernism is nothing more than repackaged Marxism.
Wonderful video. I love learning how philosophy fits into grand historical narratives and zeitgeists. It reminds you how ideas which shape the world are a product of their times and the enduring will of the human spirit and intellect. In that sense there is always room and arguably a need for philosophy and philosophers.
Basically, Communism didn't make it through the peer review of science and logic, so Postmodernism is trying to get rid of both.
😂😂
I appreciate the video.
My understanding of postmodernism is somewhat different, so I’m going to try to articulate how, and see if anyone has a response.
It seems to me that postmodernism’s definition is much larger than the one you’ve presented here. Although it definitely is concerned with the balance of power and organization of societies, to me it is particularly distinguished by the lack of faith in objective truth. It is cynical in the sense that it criticizes most attempts at explanation for why human affairs should be organized in any particular way. And it seems to always point at the power structures behind the scenes, and says that power creates its own logic. But it does not seem to provide any viable alternative. The point of view of postmodernism eliminates the idea that a ‘proper’ way to organize is possible. And this is not to say it is wrong, but I sensed a judgement call in your definition of it.
Relating to this, I find that the connectivity and accessibility of information in today’s world has furthered the postmodern condition. We find that we’re not standing on such solid ground, in our understanding of ‘truth’, and that much of it is determined by our environment and emotions, etc.
I’m interested to hear about this ‘next phase’, but I’m skeptical of the suggestion that these developments have been positive in the way that you seem to imply.
Sadly, the video follows and assumes the biased framework of postmodernity (and actually what i just refer to as modernity, lol). The bias is that while the old order of the "white Christian heterosexual, able bodied male" is being torn down, along with their traditional, western presuppositions, the new order denies it's own claims and intentions, specifically that it is a aesthetic value within a hierarchy of values. The current philosophical left cannot just label itself another orthodoxy with values of their own.
I would make a subtle but important distiction. Postmodernism is not a direct challange to 'objective truth' or 'absolute truth'. It is a radical skeptism towards ideologues knowledge claims of this type of truth. One can still say 'absolute truth' is unknown but somethings are more true than others.
I like your comments and points therein, but quickly point to our very discussion here as a counter to “furthering the postmodern condition”. I find relatively solid ground right here, on this platform, and see that you do too as well:)
@@Postlong2 radical skepticism is a rather unfortunate byproduct of modernism found in post modernism, good point
To the comments this far, and James please feel free to delete my post as it has a link in it to After Skool’s video, but the video addresses our discussion here and may give some impetus to a future video here by our very own Living Philosopher (or at least I hope so)
th-cam.com/video/raJn6guy-uQ/w-d-xo.html
“My earlier argument that postmodernism is a deteriorated version of the Enlightenment is entirely compatible with the present assertion that postmodernism explicitly rejects the Enlightenment because of theoretical extremism.
Postmodernism is the Enlightenment [i.e. modernity] gone mad. In human affairs, madness takes the role of contradiction in logic; anything follows. One consequence of the madness of theoretical extremism is that an ostensible repudiation of Platonism is itself a version of Platonism, that is, of Platonism as it is, not as it is imagined to be.”
― Stanley Rosen.
Beautifully articulated as always!
Thanks Faraz!
Mankind looks up to him who is thus gifted for disclosures about nature of things and his own nature.
A man’s nature is in harmony with itself when he desires to be nothing but what he is.
What a man is is nothing but the manifestation of his will is in fact what he wills
As a lover of the Great Romanticists from Blake through to Yeats to Tolkien and Kathleen Raine, I don't know which I loath most: Modernism, or Post- Modernism!
Refreshing to hear the term, post-modernity in the past tense.
Metamodernism:
- A synthesis of postmodernism and modernism
- It believes that we can progress and that we can find the truth and the best way to live, while still retaining the skepticism towards totalising answers
- This skepticism is a result of openness to ideas, which has made accepting an idea as true seem less plausible as there are more idea that now must be false for it to be true as well evidence that contradicts it.
Sounds like, perhaps, metamodernity is the great Order/Chaos balance humanity has been waiting for. We drug ourselves out of chaos, into order, and now there is too much. Gotta have more emotion connected to our outlooks in these regards. Otherwise, we risk leaving part of our humanity at the door if not already.
Oooh love that Brehvon. The whole thing with metamodernism as we'll see is that it's all about an oscillation so I think you are sensing something quite accurate there. Curious to hear your thoughts on next week's video!
Man is his own star
Good video. My criticism here would be that postmodernism doesn't really "fight for" anyone or anything. For that, you might be referring to critical theory, which is inherently political. Postmodernism if mostly just defined by a suspicion of universals and metanarratives, whatever they may be. In that way, it can be left wing as easily as right wing, as long as it has the right amount of scorn for any truth that isn't merely context dependent.
Very interesting video. Thank you.
Just found your channel, this is fire. I am def gonna watch more of your vids, ty for this!
Haha thanks a million Brian glad you're enjoying it so far!
It's totally absurd to call modernism naive and failing!!
To see the achievements of modernity, you should compare the situation in a modern society and a pre-modern society. Being born in the middle east and immigrating to Europe in the age of 28, I assure you the modernity works great. Sure, there are still complexities for women, sexual minorities and (the unnecessary construct of) people of color. Yet if you compare the situation of women, sexual minorities and ethnical minorities in the middle east, for instance, the difference is obvious.
Reducing these differences to cultural relativism the postmodern suggests, is however a fatal betrayal to the liberty and the equality it claims to pursue. It means that the 'brown' women are (culturally) less women to have their autonomy like the western women and 'brown' sexual minorities are even worthless to exist (It's a death penalty for being gay in many middle eastern countries!!!) because there is different culture in their countries and hence irrelevant to even discuss, which means criticizing other cultures. Yet, they are also women and gays and women and gay rights, liberties and equalities are objective and universals like the scientific truth the same postmodernism denies. These universals are deduced from the individuality the enlightenment suggests as the unit of value comparing to other collectivist/tribal values ruled the world for thousands of years before enlightenment.
After all, people vote with their feet. If the modernity were a failure and the naive cultural relativism were fruitful all the delusional postmodernists would flee from western democratic societies to say middle east not vice versa.
Empirically, no system in the history was as fruitful as enlightenment and modernity. Modernity is a journey not a station to pass by. It has various stages and it's progressing with incremental changes. It's like a tree growing.
PS.: English is not my primary language. I hope I could clarify my thought understandable though!
"Modernity is a journey not a station to pass by."
Well-stated. Human progress is a continuum, not a destination. Modernism hasn't failed man; man has failed Modernism by occasionally abandoning its tenets of reason, knowledge, education and progress.
I am interested where you are going here. Will stay tuned.
The adventure of life is to learn what I find interesting and remember what matters to me.
To me,
Fighting means conquering my self because the most difficult fight is the fight against my self since I am my greatest enemy
Very good explanation so easy to understand
"Metamodernisn" and the new "Metaverse" it's all going to be so wonderful . I just know it .
Haha I know right! Exciting times eh!!
Without knowledge
There is no meditation because
Without meditation
There is no knowledge;
He who has knowledge and meditation is near unto nirvana-
that blessed state of heavenly calm obtained by expiation.
He forgot to tell you that the postmodernist philosophers were pedophiles. Postmodernism side effects are a paralogic feedback loop that degenerates a hierarchy into chaos.
Carl Jung's psychology is a much better philosophy to sort out reality.
You clearly explained and sharply differentiated both the concepts.
Thanks Mohamed!! That's music to my ears!
Das easiest way to get into a meditative state is by listening-
Let my ears hear what ever they want to hear,
But without naming!
Great explanation of M and PM
What a great video! Thank you 😊
Do you have any published works on this topic that I can use as reference material in my doctoral research?
I would recommend Hanzi Freinacht's "The Listening Society" where I'm pretty sure he goes in depth on all this. There's also Ken Wilber's work either A Theory of Everything or A Brief History of Everything where he also goes into this through the lens of a developmental model called spiral dynamics
Jesse Lee Peterson would like to have a word with your supposition that black people were oppressed in the 1950's and 60's. He would assert that they are far more oppressed today, intellectually and socio-economically, than they were during those times, and that the Civil Rights movement was actually the beginning of the end of their betterment.
Needing material on the aims of education by O Conor.
" Liberalism is moral syphilis" Johnaton Bowden
Thank you...💕💕
My pleasure Pandit!
The first glimpse of judgement.
Modernism = hard core atheists vs POST Modernism = hard core paganists and nihilists, This is the difference. Materialism of course in both epochs. This is the real dif. Atheism is dying being replace by the 2 new cults nihilism/paganisms.
RIP humanity.
You forgot to mention the post modernists obsession with "eliminating the age of consent down to and including for infants".
I understand it wasn't the point of the video, but in passing you mentioned that to call blacks of the 1960s even second class citizens is ludicrous. I fully agree that race relations were not where they should be then, just as they aren't now, but I think that a bit extreme. (Civil rights, on the other hand, are where they should be. There is not a law codified in America that singles out any minority for discrimination.)
I think sometimes the problems of America are over-amplified because no one criticizers her more often, more harshly and more loudly than her own citizens. Some of the criticism is warranted, some is a bit much and some is extremist nonsense. All get a megaphone from our press, especially the critics. This is why Xi Jinping, president of China, felt no shame in criticizing US human rights violations, while at the same time imprisoning and murdering ethnic minorities in his own country. He had current US press clippings to justify it, too.
Also, America has a far more diverse society than any other on earth. One would expect some problems. And for many of the nations in Europe who have a nearly homogenous population by comparison, well, perhaps they should let up on us a bit. And I must add that despite the allegedly deplorable conditions for minorities in America, they still are sacrificing all to get here and are streaming across our borders. And we let them.
PS And lastly, sorry, you said nothing to deserve that rant.
Pile of nonsense
As a literary professor with some specialization in Postmodernism, I think you did a great job at summarizing Modernism/Postmodernism in just 10 minutes. Well done.
Oh wow thank you very much that genuinely means a lot! Always good to know I'm at least heading in the right direction!
Please professor, you are the vanguard: move on!
it's _M E T A M O D E R N_ time!
@@jose.montojah, yes I am up to date with Metamodernism. (Whether 'Metamodernism' is in fact a Zeitgeist, like Modernism and Postmodernism was, is questionable. Other terms to consider are Post-postmodernism, Hypermodernism, and Transmodernism.)
Funny how the actions of the postmodern philosophers had a dark sexuality. It seems that the postmodernist had an agenda to justify their dark sexuality, pedophilia.
Post modernism is a fad only followed by the elite. No reasonable normal believes sterilizing children is empowering or gender affirming. Sane people don't believe all the evils in the world comes from capitalism and only a fool lets others do their thinking for them. Because, unlike the elite who live in echo chambers insulated from the real world, we know first hand that fire burns and water wets...
"And that after this is accomplished,
and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"
Im not sure theres a compelling postmodern argument for the moral good of advocacy for the disadvantaged. The purpose seems aimed at critique of existing power structures.
For example: In this video Dr King argues that Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are good things that he wants for his people. He says the agreement was that his people could have them, and that the current systems are failing to garauntee those rights. Its not that the, archtipically modern, values are invalid, but that the system isnt working in a way that lives up to them, and things can be better. Its a aspirational argument to honor modenlrn values. The factory is providing a product that deviates from spec. Looks modern to me.
The video uses this as a critique of modernism, and while Dr. King is criticizing society, the criticism is that society isnt succeeding in its aspirations to meet that modern standard. The intention is the illustrate a critique of modernism, but uses something that targets an implementation rather than the aims. The clip actually endorses those aims and deems them desirable for all.
I understand the utility of this sort of critique, but Im not sure it offers more than a means to alter systems rather than a better set of goals for those systems.
Great summarization. It sounds like Dr King was pointing people back to the promises of modernity. Not attempting to over throw it. Perhaps this is what postmodernist did but then backdoor’d a bunch of nonsense as well.
The critical race theorists apparently disagreed entirely with Dr. King. They never wanted equality for blacks, because then the revolutionary goal (the neo-Marxist one) would have lost its momentum because black people wouldn't be resentful.
Postmodernisim seems to be purposely nonsensical.
"We don't use the language of our oppressors."
BUT Postmodernity was GRAND NARRATIVES -- on steroids. Language ever unbounded, standardless, reams and realms of endless semantics, epistemologies, obsessed with POWER PLAYS folding inwards all margins... the empathetic revolutionaries of factiousness, falsification and veiling fanaticism? :)
It is just a revival of sophistry. Socrates knew it. Plato knew it.
Postmodernism does not speak for the underprivileged. It speaks only for itself and its consequences harm all groups.
I think postmodernists would claim they are speaking for the oppressed. But they are so convinced of their own virtue that they don’t notice it’s mostly liberal movements that have paved the way for equality in the past century. Not postmodernism.
The "vs." is quite clear. Its "finding things out vs. just making stuff up".
Modernism did not fail. It's fundamental tenets are reason, knowledge, education and progress. It gave us classical liberalism with Natural law & rights, Individual worth, Private property, Consent of the governed (suffrage), and Limited government (no plenary powers). The failures of Communism, Fascism, and other injustices of the past century weren't due to Modernism itself, but the failure to adhere to those fundamental tenets of classical liberalism. Blaming the tragedies of the 20th century on Modernism is a straw man argument.
Yeah I agree. This video presents as fact the argument that modernity failed - it didn't. Communism failed, and there was nothing left to aim towards for that type of progressivism. So they became bitter, resentful, and sought to unite the minority, rather than the worker majority into the new proletariat. The rest is PR.
Many of those things pre-dated modernism.
Das road to hell is paved with good intentions because ignorance is even more dangerous than evil intentions.
Nothing is more precious than
Independent
Freedom
Happiness is impossible because happiness is das absent of happiness since there is no happiness higher than rest.
Break the flower tipped arrows of Mara and death will never touch me again.
Painful is birth;
Painful is death;
Painful is birth and death over and over again.
He who crosses over to the other shore becomes arhat;
Other people run up and down on this shore from death to death.
Great video as usual. For the record, the Delacroix painting featured at 1:46 (La Liberté guidant le peuple) doesn't depict the 1789 revolution but the 1830 one.
Right you are sometimes I use anachronistic paintings because they do so well at painting the picture and some people outwit me with their deep knowledge of art!
The biggest problem I have with postmodernity is that it's cynicism makes it hypocritical in that it skews the other way- where modernity obviously favoured the "straight, white, wealthy" demographic, postmodernism actively discriminates against these people in an effort to "balance the scales" rather than trying to bring everyone up to that level.
Increasing amounts of people are skeptical of the newer ideas of equity and social justice, and these people are being vilified by the "old guard" postmodernists, but I think (hope) we will move further towards genuine ideas of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as these are very noble things which we shouldn't abandon with the hasty, detestable cynicism and nihilism thay has been fostered within postmodern schools of thought.
I don't agree with your first paragraph. One's success in life is not dependent upon one's ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation, but on one's values and work ethic. There are women, gay men, and people of all ethnicities who are successful because they did what they needed to do to be successful. If I am more successful than my black neighbor, it's not because I or white society deprived him of the means or opportunity to also be successful. In actual fact, my black neighbor is more successful than me because he has a PhD. in Biology while I have an MEd. He works two jobs as an adjunct professor and for our county's agricultural extension, while I take my summers off recovering from another year of eighth graders.
I agree fully with your second paragraph.
This lacks intuition and is very banal and plain.
🔁
But the postmodernism taken to its axiom… it leads towards “criticism in order to do what?” I am not seeing the end, where postmodernism leads to the next modernism. In early Chinese times, Confucius was similar to today’s modernism and Lao Tzu was postmodernism. While Lao Tzu was important, my main question was “to what end?” Perhaps it is my modernist viewpoint, but I don’t see postmodernism as anything much beyond criticism of modern philosophy.
You claim in this video that Post Modernism asserts that, "the dream of modernity was dead" and, Post Modernism "was [is, since the philosophy is still being practiced, largely, by present-day academicians] fulfilling the dreams of its predecessor." To this, I have two queries. 1) How is it possible that Modernism failed when the philosophy never charges itself to terminate? Specifically, Modernism acknowledges that it is an ongoing process with ideals, not any set specific goal. 2) Please cite examples where the application of Post Modern philosophy has in practice succeeded in ANY of the goals stated at the end of the video. Especially knowing that Post Modernism was not the impetus, for example, in driving the United States' Civil Rights Movement.
Extraordinary in the level of bias that this video doesn’t even try to hide. Lemme guess.. you are a postmodernist. And, of course, as a postmodernist, you don’t believe in objectivity- so why be objective?? This was 12 min of postmodern propaganda.
Thank you so much for such a compelling explanation of these confusing and uneasy to formulate and describe topics !
I wonder if you can further explain one aspect that I haven't fully understood :
Modernism - ideology, end of slavery , women's rights .
Postmodernism - end of big ideology (big narrative ) but also an attempt to continue fight for the minority rights including a broader spectrum of them?
Is it fair enough to say that postmodernism was also concerned about"fighting for the rights " as modernism did , but with a different attitude , having no hopes in bright future whatsoever?
(Basically, I was a bit confused with this: if you claim that PM was everything that M wasn't, why does it still has this tendency of equality and fight for the rights?)
Yes! Love the subject matter. Fascinating times we’re living in. Can’t wait for the next vid.
Thanks Mosaic!
Our age is not an age that wants heroes because ours is an age of envy since envy is ignorance
@@TheLivingPhilosophy @5:40 - you are spreading false propaganda. W men were not ostrocized from the work place. They simply never wanted to be apart of it. This is why there are housewife leeches even today
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I downvoted because of your lie at 5:40
it's _M E T A M O D E R N_ time!
good video, but it would interesting to hear your perspectives on the failures of post modernism and potential failures of the "metaverse." Failures include the breakdown of the family, drug overdoses, and the deference to corrupt corporations such as nike that enslave thousands.
You make good points. But to what extent are these problems that postmodernity is seeking to ameliorate rather than being at cause for? At least that's what comes to mind with the Nike element. That seems more to do wtih the late stage capitalism so despised by postmodernists rather than something cause by them.
One the other hand it would be interesting to explore the breakdown of the family and the problems with addiction because I think that this is more closely related to postmodernity. Nietzsche's God is Dead piece comes to mind because it is the void of nihilism that was the opening shot of postmodernity and it is in many ways the eternal problem of postmodernity - how do we find meaning in a world that has none (no objective meaning that is). Might be worthy of its own video Zack you're right
@@TheLivingPhilosophy the way to bring meaning into my life is to devote myself to loving others and to be of service to communities and people that I love;
and to create something of beauty and value with love.
@@satnamo 100%
@@TheLivingPhilosophy so we blame modernity for inequities and inequality but we can't blame post-modernism for the consequences of uprooting traditional values. Critical difference being that modernity actually sought to (and succeeded in) solving inequalities where as post-modernism actually seeks to uproot tradition. So blame modernity for a problem it didnt create and actually solved but advert responsibility from post modernism for the consequences of a goal they actually sought out to accomplish?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I'm still working through a chunk of your videos and say that what I'm perceiving as appologism is merely a typical philosophical engagement, and you don't necessarily hold that opinion. But my instincts tell me that you are in fact a postmodernist or at least your views are adjacent to it.
@@ChaBoi777 would you be so kind as to give examples to these traditional values postmodernism is uprooting so that some people including me can understand better?
I find your analysis lacking without any reference to the co-opting of Postmodernism by oligarchs determined to keep the peasants divided and confused.
I think Postmodernism has good aims, but went about it the wrong way, simply destroying systems isn't enough.
I don't agree that it had "good aims," nor do I think it "went about it the wrong way." There is no "way" postulated by PM. It is a failure because it is not prescriptive; it offers nothing coherent in place of Modernism.
I am not Modern, I am Ancient, the philosophies of Plato, Socrates, Confucius, Lao Tzu.
Having no philosophical background myself, I find your videos really informative. Re. your point at about 7.15 that the balance of power had shifted, but remained in the same demographic profile, is it not true that the transition from monarchs/aristocrats to tycoons/bankers is a change of caste and perhaps ethnicity?
Thanks boc! Much appreciated.
I would definitely agree that the caste had changed but I would challenge the claim about the ethnicity being changed. Seems to me that it was the same demographics no? Unless I'm overlooking something. Be curious to hear what's coming to your mind
Oy. Vey.
He forgot to point out that the main philosophers of Postmodernism are pedophiles.
Postmodernism side effects are disturbing and causes healthy hierarchies to degenerate into chaos.
Thanks for bringing the concept of metamodernism to my attention. I've been looking for how to systematize my different thoughts and observations on the tension between the two, and that seems to be a great keyword to search for new and inspiring material.
I absolutely love your channel and the work you do, but I have but one request; if you could put a list of book references that helped you understand and shape such topics into these educative videos :) It would be very nice to have access to your reading guide for all the topics you discuss and deepen the horizon of understanding them.
Brilliant idea, I would love that too!
Very well done. Plus, your accent lends to the meta-ambiance.
As a grad student in the 1990s, and someone sympathetic to modernity, I was very put off by the esoteric language of post modernism. And I STILL feel that way. I've read and understood Kant, Kierkegaard, and Heidegger, but Foucault and Derrida both lost me near page 5 or 6. Other folks who seemed starstruck by these post-modern big shots universally shied from my questions.
You've given an "upshot" account of post-modernism, but is that all there is? Either there's much left to be said, or Foucault talked on and on to say what you have in 5 minutes.
There's no consensus among Postmodernists like Foucault of what Postmodernism even is. Ask 10 intellectuals to define Postmodernism and you'll get 10 completely separate and unique responses. It seems the only consensus among Postmodernists is a scathing critique of rationalism with no counterpoint. What I find most interesting is that while Postmodernists reject rationalism, they seem to employ it over and over again as their go-to means of attempting to define their own concept.
@@hybridmoments82 it's hard to describe the outside of the box you live within.
@@Chiefmucka You're welcome to call what I live in a "box" if you're capable of describing that box or what's outside of it, but you won't, because you can't, because Postmodernism is wholly and exclusively subjective. It doesn't change, redefine or add anything of value to objectivity whatsoever. It's a nice little religion.
@@hybridmoments82 well said
Really nicely said. But I would add that for those who coined the words of liberty and fraternity were also those deeply suspicious of whether the state could support it. They tried. The answer is no.
Many modernist philosophers, scientists, and writers were predominantly men, and as a result, their work often reflected male-centric perspectives. This led to the exclusion of women and other marginalized groups. Postmodernism's emphasis on deconstructing grand narratives , which includes previously marginalized voices. "Knowledge is not made for understanding; it is made for cutting." - Michel Foucault, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History"
Great video, thank you for putting these great ideas together. Im trying to better understand the benefits of post-medernism which you touched on... Wouldn't it also be argued that those atrocities caused by modernity could have been caused by not being rational enough? Like following RAND research and not going into Vietnam rather than trying to win an election? Like it seems the quest for power brought on Vietnam, not rational approaches and democracy. Same could be said for Civil Rights... like the legal system was a bunch of honky brits that moved to the south and set up shop in fruit plantations. It wasn't necessarily the age of reason causing it, but rather lawlessness and violence. Post modernity claims to fix all these problems but I don't understand what it has solved is all. Maybe someone knows here.
I came here for an unbiased overview of this, so far it checks out pretty good
So the argument is that humanity did not reach modernity yet. Its still riddled with ethnocentrism and aristrocracy, allby taking on different forms during the times. Modernaty itself is Not excluding, ITS the ethoncentrists WHO exclude
Great synthesis- thanks- I also see how space travel, science fiction, and other modernist narratives died on the vine in the 1970’s
uh, i'm not sure what you're saying, science fiction seems to be quite alive and well.
So, logic and reason and optimism did not work as expected, so let us be delusional, irrational and pessimists.
If Foucault is your definitional guide… 😮 whooo… then bias proceeds your analysis…
Postmodernism might be the worst thing that humanity has ever come up with
From my understanding, Modernity is more of a late 1800 and early 1900 concept. The Enlightenment, Founding Fathers, and early 1800 men were definitely different in art, politics, philosophy, science, religion, and culturally then those in the Progressive Era, Age of Imperialism, Laissez-faire Capitalism, and early 1900 men. I think that the French philosophers to clump an entire century together can be damaging. I do agree that Postmodernity is around the sixties, however, I think, from my understanding of American history and my understanding of European history, making Modernity stretch all the way to the days of the Enlightenment is a bit of a stretch. Nonetheless, what we are looking at is the basic philosophy of Modernity and Postmodernity, which I thank you for explaining.
Modernism IQ 130 .
Post modern IQ 65.
Truly impressed by your knowledge, delivery, technical editing, flow and grasp of events. Thank you.
Thank you very much!!
A small addition: Tractatus’ Wittgenstein said that he had solved all problems of philosophy and yet little had been advanced with it, because of the most important things of ethics and meaning of life nothing could be said
Educational,but still the dead weight of christianity does ot show progress
Thank you for the clear divide between the two ideologies, it really helps unblur the line between the two and differentiate them
amazing video, very concise and on-point. Fabulous hair btw.
Please name 1 single issue depicted in your video where modernism has failed and postmodernism succeeded. You mentioned very vaguely that somehow Postmodernism has somehow achieved what Moderism couldn't, but fail to provide details. Are women now equal to men in society? What benefit did Postmodernism provide for black people? Are the children of Vietnam now safe from side effects of agent orange? What exactly are Postmodernism's list of achievements aside from creating intellectual bile whose own intellectuals seem to fail at consensus?
modernism is when hair and postmodernism is when bald
I think you meant Pre-Internet/Post-Internet........maybe not.
By the way, ABSOLUTELY great videos!
Thanks Kevin!
chad moderates vs loser far left and far right
So many get so much of postmodernism wrong, mostly by asserting it to be something it most definitely is not (Jordan Peterson)…you got it right. Thank you for the clarity.
Postmodernism is the owner of babble
Excellent work!
So in summary, postmodernity is post common sense. Hopefully folks like Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan and Richard Heart can get out of this unhealthy societal rut.
But of course, Reason never happened.
Very concise. Great stuff.
Thanks a million Multihog!
A very thoughtful presentation.
This was written by chatGPT
Thanks for making these philosophical concepts so easy to understand. Your voice and cadence is quite calming, which makes the info easy to absorb.
Ah thank you very much! I was deliberately working with this video on going at a gentler pace so it's great to hear you say that!
Pleasant speech is das highest blessing
Waoh that was succinct
I disagree towards the end. Post-modernism is just hailed as ‘the fix’ to modern issues, it doesn’t actually delve into it.
And Metamodernism, from what I’ve heard, is not a synthesis of modernity and post-modernity, but a progression of post-modernism.
Anarchy: (An) No or Without, (Archon) Rulers or Masters. The word Anarchy literally means NO RULERS OR MASTERS, and therefore NO MASTERS, NO SLAVES.
Michel Foucault identifies a # of traits of Modernity including:
• A Questioning or rejection of tradition
• The prioritizing of Individualism, Freedom, & Formal Equality
• Faith in Inevitable Social, Scientific, & Technological progress
• A movement from Feudalism toward Capitalism & the market economy.
• Industrialization & Urbanization,
• Secularization
• The development of the Nation-State, representative democracy, and public education.
In 1986 while working at a Tire plant in Akron Ohio, a coworker was crushed by a 2 ton roll of steel belt. My Union Steward told me "There are people who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who say what the F@ck just happen"
Anton "All Weather" Vukovic
1930-1986 RIP
The fact that society isn’t ready to live up to an idea at a particular time does not mean that idea is false or an unworthy endeavor. In fact Jefferson and the other Founders knew all too well that slavery was wrong, however they also knew that the Southern colonies would never join the cause of Revolution if slavery was prohibited at that time. It was the central theme that overshadowed everything in the development of the United States until it finally came to a head in 1861
This is the best explainer video, about anything, I've ever seen. Please keep up the work on Metamodernism. 🤘🏽🤘🏽
Hahaha thank you. Hard to top that
These vids are amazing
Thanks jimmylad!
You must court him because he does not court you because infancy conforms to nobody.
@@satnamo huh??? I don’t get it
And within a few years people will ask, "What ever happened to that metamodern movement?".
I don't know how people were hoping for justice and equality in the days of Capitalism.
You make a good point
Just as I use myself.
Is equality a virtue?
@@satnamo
You can say it's a system that you would hope for if you are not the privileged one
Here is where it went off the rails. I identified this when I was in high school. Our physics teacher was explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to us. He said that a moving clock would be slower than a clock that was not moving. For the moving clock I visualized a clock in a flying airplane, and for the clock that was not moving, a clock on the ground. It was obvious to me that if the clock in the airplane was slower, the pilot of the airplane would get a faster speed for the airplane than an observer on the ground would get using the clock on the ground to time the flight of the airplane. Then I read Einstein's book on the subject and was surprised to learn that Einstein was using equations that showed that the pilot of the airplane and the observer on the ground would get the same speed for the airplane. But, whatever Einstein did, reality still exists. If the clock in the airplane is slower, the pilot will get a faster speed for the airplane. Einstein turned science into a cult based on a miraculous concept. This does not mean that there cannot be one speed for the airplane. Newton only had one speed for the airplane, but he theorized that the two clocks were showing the same time. The way Newton would have resolved the problem of a slower clock would have been to convert the time of one clock to the other, saying that there was a preferred time for the system. What scientists have done since the time of Einstein is to say that a second of time is the building block of the universe, and that a certain number of oscillations of a cesium isotope atom will contract distances, curve space, and otherwise distort reality to conform to the idea that time controls all other parameters of physics because scientists have defined time according to atomic events, and as long as atomic events show different rates of time, they have to be reconciled by distorting reality.
Well done. Except Einsteins papers on relativity were published in the early 20th century, not 19th as stated.
So post-modernity is sad modernity with improvement in rights of whoever it left.
As I understand it, Modernity is presently under attack from both sides, from both premodern and postmodern attitudes. Tough place to be.
Penicillin...