Writing an article that touches on this subject! Thank you so much for a solid synopsis on these! Great refresher!

it's important to note that "postmodern" thinkers were generally describing and critiquing postmodernity, not promoting it. calling Jean Baudrillard or Frederic Jameson "postmodernists" in the latter sense would be like calling Karl Marx a capitalist for describing capitalism

ai?

Very helpful video,thankyou so much🙏

Thank you. One can't ask for a better overview of this book.

Marx wuz a trust funder, he's decrying the fundamental relationship between having and havenot-ing, which he had'th not. Ground already covered see Smith vs. public works.

great video thank you

Yerre

Thank you

I resemble these observations.

thank you

Nice explanation. Very well explained. Thanks 🙏👍

This video is old ahh hell but I wanted to say that your style of talking is perfectly fine and this video very genuinely helped me understand in a way others did not! hope you still make content and have a great day if you ever read this!

thank you for the uploading the vedios

Using a few pictures and graphics will get you more views. Your content is good, but it needs to be told a bit more interestingly. Unfortunately viewers on youtube expect that.

Good👌👌👌👌

Good👌

Great work

Was brought her because I am trying to read John Zerzans, A People’s History Of Civilization. First few pages this symbolic/real concept is used assuming the reader already knows these things…

Also about this video: when someone says certain structures, like basic reasoning are innate / a priori, could't you respond: yes, but those structures arose from evolutionary processes in which structures that constituated reasoning better responded to the environment - in that sense they arose from a long evolutionary "experience" (not necessarily conscious experience)

Hello Andrew, I really like your videos. I am currently writing an interdiciplinary thesis on feeling connected - in parts I want to link phenomenology, psychology and neuroscience. A video about phenomenology, new phenomenology and its difference but also potential links to neuroscience and psychology would be a dream come true for me!

Feminist philosophy is a novel idea that attempts to describe real world phenomenons, it's a modern example of "creative" ideas like the principle of impetus

It's a sexist, irrational, incongruous, self contradictory, bias, ideologically possessed, unethical and self-serving set of believes that is pretending to be philosophy so it can gain some legitimacy to spread its destructive (and self-destructive) political agenda.

good video, if you are open to criticism, I'd recommend not skipping over the points you wrote in your slides. The difference between a 7 minute and a 9 minute video is not too large that people won't click it.

How can a normative distinction be true or false? If something ought to be like this isn't that the way you want it to be? If not, how can it be objective instead of subjective?

Well discussed by both of them. Bryan Magee puts up a good fight.

Postmodernism exists to obfuscate by attacking the very foundation of truth, called the Logos, the Word, Jesus Christ. Your video is excellent. Very clear and informative. Thanks for the listen.

Nederland is a cool little town!

Interesting. This is not quantum computing though...

Appreciate the detailed breakdown! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (behave today finger ski upon boy assault summer exhaust beauty stereo over). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

Happy morning Sir... V r expecting more videos on literary theory in updated version Sir..

Dr Chapman,could you please do a video on Sartre's totalization in regards selfhood.

I can't thank you hard enough and the attached PDF is just the chef's kiss. Underrated!

Johnson Michael Jackson Steven Miller Elizabeth

All words are twice removed from the truth

Soooo... are you still a moral realist?

PS What about Jean Baudrillard? Or Lyotard? Or are they decidedly different? What is the difference between post-modernism and poststructuralism?

Finally! Someone explained Postructuralism without getting it wrong. Thank you. Saving this vid for anyone who asks.

I hope who ever comes and finds this video reads this and knows they are enough and things will get better for you , it’s hard but we all need to keep fighting day by day

What's the difference between (enlightened) fascism and (unenlightened) Catholicism? Kinda makes you think.

thank you - most grateful for your clarity in explaining each theory - new sub :)

0:10 You will not be *MY* guide, Silly Socialist Stooge. 🤡

philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral, and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.

Respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations, caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.

🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Cont...

1:02 authoritarian: essentially, a synonym for “dictator” (see that entry, below). Just as in the case of the term “dictator”, this word is most often used as a descriptor for a leader or a ruler who imposes his or her own will upon a population, almost exclusively in a NEGATIVE way. HOWEVER, it is important to understand that the term “authoritarian” originates from the root “author”, which simply refers to one who creates or originates something, via the word “authority”, which entails the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. Therefore, genuine authoritarianism is a dharmic concept, because when one exercises his or her authority over his/her subordinates, it contributes to social cohesion. Indeed, human society cannot survive without proper authoritarian systems in place. It is absolutely imperative to very carefully read the Glossary entries for “dharma” and “authority” in this regard. Therefore, it is strongly suggested that English speakers use words such as “fascistic” and “tyrannical”, instead of using the unfairly-deprecatory terms “authoritarian” and “dictator”, in reference to rulers who exercise ILLEGITIMATE dominance over a populace. authority: the right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. See the Glossary entry for “author” for the etymology. The notion of AUTHORITY is intimately connected to the person or body that originates something. The author of a novel is, by definition, the preeminent AUTHORITY over his work. He has the AUTHORITY to dictate how his book ought to be published, promoted, and distributed. Furthermore, he has the AUTHORITY to delegate such rights to another person or company, if he desires. Likewise, a mother has full AUTHORITY over the children she (pro)creates. No sane individual would ever dare presume that a mother has no AUTHORITY over her own offspring! Similarly, as the head of his family, a father has the AUTHORITY to direct the actions of his wife/wives and his children. Of course, that father is not the ultimate authority on earth - he has his own masters, such as his own father, his uncles, his employer (if he is a worker), and most importantly, his spiritual master, all of whom should exercise their authoritative positions in relation to that father. Similarly, a true king (as defined in Chapter 21) has conditional AUTHORITY over his people, even if not every single one of his edicts is perfectly in accordance with dharmic (righteous) principles. A monarch’s AUTHORITY is compromised only in the event that his rule sufficiently devolves into some kind of unholy, fascistic tyranny. And if a king’s dominion was to devolve into such a tyranny, it would robustly imply that he was never a genuine monarch in the first place. Unfortunately, *authority* is often conflated with the notion of *power* , by both the masses, and in most dictionaries. Theoretically, any person or organization can display a force of power over another entity, yet that does not necessarily signify AUTHORITY. Thankfully, power does not always correlate with AUTHORITY. If that was the case, humble, gentle monks such as Gautama Buddha and Lord Jesus the Christ would, of necessity, have very little AUTHORITY, whereas powerful governments would have the AUTHORITY to dictate imperatives to its citizens, when in fact they do not, as they are almost exclusively illegitimate (that is, against the law, or dharma). P.S. Read Chapters 21 and 22 of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", in order to understand the distinction between a legitimate government and an illegal government.

ANARCHY: Anarchy is a state in which there are no rulers. It is a rejection of hierarchy. The earliest recorded use of the word, from the early sixteenth century, simply meant “ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENT”, albeit with the implication of civil disorder. A similar but ameliorated meaning began to be employed in the nineteenth century, Christian era, in reference to a Utopian (that is, an idealistic) society that had NO GOVERNMENT. The English term was borrowed from the Medieval Latin word, “anarchia”, borrowed from the Greek word, “anarkhía” (“lack of a leader, lawlessness”), from “ánarchos” (“without a head or chief, leaderless”), from “an-” + “-archos”, derivative of “archós” (“leader, chief”) + “-ia”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. Factually-speaking, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. A family is deficient without its head, just as a body without its head is incomplete. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise, with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly function without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists’ distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Those abject fools who advocate for some kind of ANARCHISTIC society should be required to adhere to their own asinine ideology within their private domains. So, for example, a man who desires the absence of any form of national leadership, really ought to consent to that very same template upon his own family. He should not presume to be the head of his household, but rather, permit his wife and children to become his equals. Likewise, a housewife ought not rule over her children, an employer must not direct the actions of his employees, and so on, and so forth. Thereafter, it will become blatantly obvious that any form of anarchy cannot endure, assuming, of course, that in the case of a father, his household is not already fractured, which seems to be the case in most families, due to lax leadership as a consequence of poor government, crooked education, and feminism (which has as its not-so-tacit goal of destroying all forms of patriarchal structures, starting from the nuclear family). How unfortunate it is that anarchists usually can see the need for a hierarchical structure within their own domains, such as those mentioned above, yet quite impervious to the necessity of a strong regime on the national level. The hypocrisy is astounding! And for those idiots who would contend, “It is okay for me to be the head of my family but there should not be a government ruling over me”, that is not a logical argument, but merely an unjustified, emotive assertion, motivated by the fact that we humans have not been governed by a legitimate regime for at least a couple of centuries. Of course, this is not to imply that every monarch in ancient history was a holy and righteous king (or even an actual king, by definition), but the fact that we humans have survived this long, suggests that they were not the kind of demonic, evil, murderous, thieving scumbags who have ruled-over every single country and nation on the planet during the past few hundred years or so. Following, are two imaginary dialectic exercises that demonstrate the STUPIDITY of those abject fools who advocate for anarchy. One such fool is a man who does not accept the paradigm that men ought to lead their families, whilst the other abject fool holds the antithetical position: FIRST DIALECTIC: Anarchist: “I firmly believe that ALL governments are corrupt and that anarchy is the only legitimate system of societal organization.” Teacher: “Firstly, I am not convinced that the concept of anarchy would, or even could, include the fact of ‘organization’, but be that as it may, do you accept the OBVIOUS fact that human societies and civilizations are founded upon the nuclear family unit?” Anarchist: “I think so, yes! As you stated, it is a rather obvious fact. Of course INDIVIDUALS are the foundation of the family, correct?” Teacher: “Of course that’s true, but the basic SOCIETAL unit is the nuclear family - a man, his wife, and their children, if and when they come.” Anarchist: “Okay - I can accept that! I won’t mention homosexual couples at this stage, since we might undertake a TANGENTIAL discourse!” Teacher: “Briefly, homosexual couples are unable to expand as a unit, since PROCREATION can’t result, but let us leave that for another time!” Anarchist: “CERTAINLY!” Teacher: “So, in your considered opinion, who do you believe ought to be the HEAD of the nuclear family unit (and the extended family unit)?” Anarchist: “Well, as an egalitarian, I believe that men and women are EQUAL, so a husband and wife ought to be joint leaders in their family.” Teacher: “In that case, it seems that we have reached an impasse since, if you believe such an erroneous thing, there is no hope for you, sad to say! The only thing left for me to say is, you DESPERATELY need to read the Holiest of Holy Scriptures, ‘A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity’, in which it is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, that equality is non-existent outside the quantum and conceptual spheres. And because of this self-evident truism, just as with our closest relatives, the great apes, adult males have evolved to naturally serve as the leaders of their families, their extended families, and furthermore, their clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations (or in modern terms, their countries, too). At the risk of hurting your feelings, any man who believes that their womenfolk are in any way equal to themselves in authority/leadership, is a truly pathetic-excuse-for-a-man, and deserves everything that comes his way as a result of his wimpish ideology, such as being hen-pecked by their bossy daughters, wives, and mothers.” Anarchist: “WOW - that was quite offensive, wouldn’t you agree? Anyway, I shall look into the publication to which you referred, perhaps.” Teacher: “I sincerely hope so, for the future of our species FULLY depends on adhering to what is known as ‘dharma’, and the viewpoint to which you subscribe, namely egalitarianism (and I would wager, other leftist ideologies, since it is practically impossible to find a human being in the present age who is genuinely conservative in all his or her ways), is the death-knell of humanity, truth be told! And incidentally, you claim to be an egalitarian, yet when I asked you who should act as the family leader, I noticed that you totally overlooked the children, so your logic is rather flawed. Is there any logical (as opposed to any valid) reason for precluding children?” Anarchist: “Obviously, it would be impractical for a young child to be the head of a household!” Teacher: “Exactly - that is a valid reason, yet not a logical one, according to the concept of egalitarianism, which implies that each individual human is intrinsically equal in some fashion (in authority, in this particular case)! And that is the reason why I assert that the wife, too, must not act as the leader of a family. Hopefully, that will become clear upon carefully analyzing latter chapters of ‘FISH’.” Anarchist: “FINE!” Cont...

OK, thanks ...

A good app ik for subtitles is Immersive translate. I recommend it since its hard for some of us to watch without them