Ayn Rand Hero: Professor Stephen Hicks - Postmodernism and Making Work Beautiful Stephen Hicks
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- Join Mark Michael Lewis and philosophy Professor Stephen Hicks in a conversation about an honest approach to knowledge and understanding human thriving.
In this episode, you'll hear:
Why you should always take arguments at their best [10:15]
The reason why many philosophers are ‘left’ [16:00]
How Objectivism is an ‘outlier’-philosophy [19:00]
3rd Generation Postmodernism and the Weaponry of Affirmative Action [25:00]
Pronoun wars [35:00]
The Value-Creators, and why they matter [48:00]
The Top “Success Traits” of an entrepreneur [56:00]
Being the entrepreneur of your own life [1:02:00]
The choice to make your work beautiful [1:07:00]
Stephen Hicks received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Indiana University in 1992 and has, for the last twenty years, taught philosophy at Rockford College, in Rockford, Illinois. He is the author of articles on postmodern philosophy, the philosophy of history, Ayn Rand ’s philosophy of Objectivism , free speech on campus, modern art, and business ethics, among other topics. His book Readings for Logical Analysisis a companion volume to David Kelley’s The Art of Reasoning. In 2004, Hicks brought out Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault , a work sponsored in part by a grant from The Atlas Society, publisher of this magazine. In 2006, he scripted and narrated a documentary called Nietzsche and the Nazis. In 2007 Rockford College received a $925,000 grant from the BB&T Charitable Foundation, which will be used to establish a Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship , with Hicks as its head.
I love Stephen Hicks.
Great interview
Outstanding interview. Dr. Hicks is one of my favorite philosophers, and this one is possibly my favorite of your podcasts. You've outdone yourself on this one, Mark. Bravo
While I do share Prof Hick's hope, that people might get bored of postmodernism and move on, I am a bit more pessimistic. While he sure is right when he says that smart people with active minds would move on, and that thats why academic philosophy has moved on, the same is not necessarily true for the social traction which postmodernism has gathered. People who embrace the power-play will not get bored of it so quickly, and activist disciplines on university campuses are still fully fledged ideological boot-camps. Academic philosophy also moved on from old-school marxism a long time ago, however still today can social movements be thrilled by it, and adopt it as ideology. The smart postmodernists of the first generation were perhaps never the problem, but rather the less genius next generations, who picked their thoughts and ran with them, and adopted them as ideology.
sad but true. the only thing to do is to outcompete them.
I agree. The irony of it all is though: in engaging in 'outcompeting' them, in some sense the non-postmodernists are forced to joining their power-play. LOL
So the resulting social dynamics will make perfect sense for the postmodernists, and in fact they might be strengthened in their believes by experiencing the increased power-struggle.
The difference of course is that for them its just power struggle between equally valid narratives, and for the non-postmodernists its a power struggle for the objectively better ideas to prevail, and the objectively worse ideas to be left behind. But hey, they wont see the difference. xD
Maybe, if a large number of these post-modernists weren't simply cowards to their core. And that's not me trying to throw shade their way, but, just speaking from my own experience, I have a very difficult time finding any post-modernists that enjoy extreme sports, staying out all night, and living life like there's no tomorrow lol. They're really just a group of dull, drab, and angst-filled kids; in terms of their apparent "arch type" at least. They seem to only possess any strength, or sense of confidence in their own strength, when in numbers, outside of that though, I'm sure a few of the notably mentally unstable ones can exhibit episodes of extreme individual strength, but sadly, it ends up being a charade due to their incomprehensible mental state.
The non-post modernists will simply do what is "right" by them, just like the post-modernists. I wouldn't necessarily say we're being forced to play their game, but rather, they're the ones being forced lol. Because that kinda is, what "real strength" does in regards to when it interacts with this "fake strength" of the post modernists. The only side being "forced", generally speaking, are the nerds getting pushed around by the jocks lol not the jocks who are pushing around the nerds. Though I'm sure someone could deconstruct that into the complete opposite of what I just said lol, but at the end a the day, I'm not sure a .45 to the head (not to be crude here, but "real") doesn't offer must in terms of deconstruction. Like, you just *can't argue* with sheer power and force of will. You either bow your knees, or raise your fists.
There's more than one way to "communicate" in life ;) I really enjoyed reading your responses though bud! I might actually spend more time in the comment section if people took the time to write out their real thoughts like you. Thanks.
The question is, how much destruction will they leave in their wake before people get “bored” enough?
@1:04:00 This value-for-value exchange (and any elucidation of this basic topic) was almost completely missing both at home and in my first 18 years at Gov' Institutional Education (Fort Wayne IN: Pleasant Center Elem, Weisser Park & Whitney Young Elem, Memorial Park M.S., and Wayne H.S); rather unfortunately, this continued to be missing through my liberal arts educations at IPFW, PU Lafayette IN, and then Ball State University where I graduated with a BSW (Social Work -- save the world!). Not until age 24 did I begin to think in the terms of (subjective) value-for-value exchanges! Before that, I was working on algorithms for determining the hard/objective/true value of each & every exchange (just as those in Communist Russia, apparently, according to +Jordan B Peterson in one or more of his lectures).
Sad but true. I also was not acquainted with it through my graduate school training. It was only by reading "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" by Ayn Rand. I thought it was a postmodern philosophy text, and was shocked to read it, but it got me curious and eventually led me to become a Randroid.
I'm just constantly amazed at how collectively "stupid" we've become. Not as a nation, but as a global people. Even Europe has succumbed to this nonsense. Even when the very basis of it's existence is a contradiction, the objective claim that there ARE no valid objective claims, is caked right into the goddamn root of this philosophy. And yet.....here we are.
To be honest with you though, that idea actually gives me hope lol. If we're really that bad at recognizing terrible logic....I guess I should just be thanking God that we haven't ALREADY killed ourselves xD The fact that we made it this far should be a testament unto itself!
Thank you! ...very well stated.
The "altruist" (predatory) devil in me demands Prof Hicks give me either his brilliant intelligence, his striking good looks, his pleasant and honest character or his admirable patience and conscientiousness.
It's just not fair for him to have them all and not me.
The fact that I'm neither as smart, as good looking or as virtuous as him calls for justice to be done. I hereby call for redistribution of personality!
single payer love.
I was watching a program in Swedish about satanism, It is very much about egotism, worshipping money, being ruthless towards others and focusing on the ego. They were dead against altruism. At least this was the philosophy of this satanic group in Sweden.
It reminded me of Ayn Rand
Ben Angel :
The truly “Satanic” ones are those who feel that others owe them a living.
So it’s ok for me to like Ayn Rand?
@23:10 Prof points out that your choice of studying "narrative & meta-narrative" could lead one down another path of fiction. Instead he points you back to scientific approach using technical terms.
*Have you +AynRandHero thought further about this?*
I am curious to know how you (and others) might rephrase your question.
I remember my University days which would be circa 1985-86, with some bright student demanding equal representation for philosophical texts from non-white cultures. Since I was the other bright student, he asked if I would join him. To which I replied, NO.
@1:07:07 Wrong word "ruthless" -- you go on to describe it a few seconds later as a relationship between two individuals that are ""having so much fun", "respect", and "win-win".
+AynRandHero *What word would you choose instead?*
Would you chose "ruthlessness" over "diligence"?
Why use an analogy? ...and why use *sporting competition* as an analogy, which clearly has at it's center a zero-sum outcome? Mark's story has no losers. Cav's vs Warriors on the other hand...
Second, why divert attention from the issue of word choice to the commenter's sports CV? This makes your argument look desperate.
I would clean up these poor habits ASAP.
I think the future for objectivist thinking is going to be a polite, self imposed segregation from an increasingly subjectivist society and culture: the formation of new borders, new countries,
so to say. Of course, the economic engine that is essential to the establishment and survival of such things must be secured, and this will be possible only through a strategic initiative to that end, which
would include - foremost, a mantra that will placate through deft semantic manipulation - those who have now secured the most political influence. With fewer and fewer people
willing or able to concentrate for more than a few minutes at a time, compounded with their demand for parity in all things as a condition of their happiness, the future of humanity in the coming decades
does not look bright.
Sure - and ... bitcoin.
:-)
huh? ... Hicks helped you with PM and Socialism?!!!! I think you missed something
This is Great - thank you!
I would love to ask Dr. Hicks if Postmodernism was behind Quantum Mechanics.
Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson have very similar philosophical insights
Great breakdown of the essentials for the moral justification for unending reparations. It's due to relativism
@21:00 - 'systematic' means Integration - it is necessary to put it all together, see if it can be applied