Explaining Postmodernism: Beyond Bad Faith

Stephen Hicks “Explaining Postmodernism" is the worst book ever written on postmodern theory.
This video explains why.
@jonasceikaCCK
@DigitalGnosis
@TheMultiversityProject
@OpenCollegePodcast
=======================================
Have you Heard About Postmodernism? 00:00
Literature Review 02:23
“Explaining” Postmodernism 04:21
The Source(s) of the Problem 09:11
The Postmodern Vanguard 11:52
Lyotard 12:37
Derrida 17:22
Rorty 22:49
Foucault 29:15
Where’s the Baudrillard? 37:44
Who’s Afraid of Frederic Jameson? 44:51
The Spectre of Marx(ism) 52:53
Atlas Shilled 1:00:37
=======================================
Link to Appendix A: Hicks Citations: docs.google.com/document/d/1i...
Link to Bibliography: docs.google.com/document/d/1e...
=======================================
Literature Review Videos
CCK Philosophy: • A Critique of Stephen ...
Digital Gnosis: • Stephen Hicks Explaini...
Multiversity Project: • Explaining Stephen Hic...
Open College Podcast (CEE YT): • Taking on my Critics |...
=======================================
Footnotes:
1. Čeika 2018.
2. Multiversity Project 2019.
3. Ormond 2022.
4. Hicks 2024.
5. Hicks 2004, pp 90-91.
6. ibid., pg. 16.
7. ibid.,
8. ibid., pp. 2-3.
9. ibid.,
10. Fish 1982, pg. 180, 299, 303 and Chapter 6.
11. Hicks 2004, pg. 14.
12. ibid., pp184-186.
13. ibid., pp. 202-214.
14. ibid., pg. 1.
15. ibid., pg. 223.
16. Čeika 2018, [08 : 22]
17. Hicks 2004, 183.
18. Lyotard 1988, Pg. 13
19. Bertens 2002, pg. 244.
20. Hicks 2004, pg. 83.
21. Lyotard 1984, pg. xxiv.
22. Lyotard 1993, chapter 3.
23. Hicks 2004, see pages: 16, 190-191, 199.
24. Lilla, 1998, pg. 40. This is interesting, because the precise wording used by Hicks does not appear in the Kaufman translation of “Spectres,” nor in the abridged version published in New Left Review. (Derrida, “Spectres of Marx” NLR Issue 205, May/June 1994a, pg. 56). In Kaufman’s translation “eyes” in the original French has been translated as “view”, but Lilla has kept eyes, so this may simply be his own translation, as he does not include a footnote for the quote, sensible since he provides attribution in the paragraph. This is why I am comfortable asserting that Hicks got the quote from Lilla, and not Derrida. And, to be sure, Hicks DOES cite Lilla, so the problem isn’t plagiarism, but deceptively citing a book you haven’t read.
*The first essay in Moscou alle retour, was published in English in 1993 (hence where the title's translation originates) but the 1995 book Lilla references and Hicks cites, was not.
25. ibid.,
26. Derrida 1994b, pg. x.
27. Derrida 1994b, pg 113.
28. Multiversity Project 2019, [1 : 02 :12]
29. Bertens 2002, pg. 280.
30 Hicks 2004, pg. 85 and 172 respectively.
31. Bertens 2002, pg. 280.
32. ibid., pg. 283.
33. Hicks 2004, pg. 176.
34. Rorty 1989, pp. 4-5.
35. ibid., pg. 5.
36. ibid., pg. 6.
37. Google scholar Profile: Foucault.
38. Best & Kellner 1991, pp. 53-54.
39. Hicks 2004, pg. 187
40. ibid.
41. Foucault 1978, pp. 92-96, 97.
42. ibid., pp 98-102.
43. ibid., pg. 100.
44. ibid.
45. Hicks 2004, pg. 157.
46. Foucault 1978, pp. 101-102.
47. Kellner 1989, pg. 20.
48. Baudrillard 1977, pg 21.
49. Gane, 1991, pg. 47.
50. Baudrillard 1994. Pg. 160.
51. Google Scholar Profile: Foucault
52. ibid.,: Derrida
53. ibid.,: Baudrillard,
54. ibid.,: Lyotard
55. Google Scholar: “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature”
56. ibid.,: “Simulacra and Simulation”
57. Baudrillard 1975, pp. 1-2.
58. Baudrillard 2007, pg. 20.
59. Rajan 2004.
60. Lie 2007.
61. Derrida see: Kearny 2005, pg. 42.; Foucault see: Bertens 2002, pg. 137.
62. Stossel 1998.
63. Baudrillard 2013, pp. 13-14.
64. Jameson 1998, pg. xi.
65. Hicks 2004, pg. 85.
66. ibid., pg. 186.
67. Jameson 1981, pg. 9.
68. ibid., pg. 20.
69. Natoli 1997, pg. 10.
70. Jameson 1991, pg. 400.
71. There are several other texts (the supplementary sources I talked about earlier) which speak about postmodernism generally, but only Lyotard’s 1997 text is actually cited from. There are some texts which are specific critiques of postmodernism, notably Koertge 1998 and Friedrich 1999.
72. Buchanan 2006, pg. 120.
73. Hicks 2004, pp. 179-180.
74. Buchannan 2006, pg. 120.
75. ibid.,
76. ibid., pg. 79.
77. Sokal 1998, pg. 249.
78. Foster 1997, pp. 195-196. the
79. Wood 1997, pg. 7.
80. Foster 1997, pp. 192-193.
81. Deleted User 2019.
82. Hicks 2004, pg. 21.
83. Hicks 2024, [42 : 30].
84. Hicks 2004, pp. 10-11.
85. ibid., pg. 152.
86. Hicks 2018.
87. Hicks 2024, [02 :15]
88. Lyotard 1984, pg. xxiv.
89. Atlas society, 2024.
90. Hicks 2004, pg. 201.
91. Verhaegh 2004.

[@StudyofSwords]

For those looking for recommendations for intro texts for postmodern theory two texts I'd highly recommend would be: "A Primer to Postmodernity" by Joseph Natoli. It was written for people who lack any background in philosophy or critical theory more specifically, and so is very accessible. It is, however, written with a, uh let's call it "playfully postmodern" framing device. The other suggestion would be: "Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations" by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. It's a bit denser than Natoli's text, it is written with an undergraduate readership in mind, but it's still very accessible. It's structured around individual theorists (Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, and also some broader examinations of where Postmodernism fits with contemporary academic streams like marxism, feminism, critical theory (more broadly) and so on. In terms of availability, they are both no longer in print (afaik), but they aren't too difficult to get aftermarket. And of course, there are usually ways of obtaining digital versions in the wake of the unavailability of physical copies.

[@Stevem]

Not only did that book missed the mark, but missed the MARX in it's theorists

[@StudyofSwords]

Damn.

[@simonm223]

This is excellent. I will note another philosopher that Hicks ignores you mentioned briefly is also telling in Deleuze - whose work on the metaphysics of difference was probably just too difficult for Hicks to understand. ;)

[@StudyofSwords]

Oh absolutely. He also mentions Lacan twice (and like Lyotard, always is listed with other people). I'm a Baudrillardian myself so that's why I went with him, but could have also went with D&G. And thanks!!! Glad you liked it.

[@la8076]

@@StudyofSwordshey man could you maybe pls make a video on simulacrum & simulation?

[@StudyofSwords]

@@la8076 I'll tell you what, I do have an "intro to Baudrillard" video somewhere in my production pipeline (when, ah, well I have a few anime centered videos lined up, so perhaps after that?) In it, I hope to explore S&S and why, despite it being Baudrillard's most popular text, is nevertheless not a very good place to start reading. Stick around and I'll get to it eventually!!!😉

[@la8076]

@@StudyofSwords thanks for replying! I’ll subscribe & stick around for sure

[@ryandude3]

I always enjoy it when someone adeptly scrutinizes a bad faith argument. Well done!

[@StudyofSwords]

Given how popular the text is, and how it's designed to appeal to potential readers without the familiarity with the subject matter, providing an accessible critique was the least I could do. Thanks!

[@twentyone9058]

Awesome video! I usually don’t watch KZbin videos about philosophy because I don’t trust random people to give accurate readings of philosophers, but you demonstrated some serious rigor and did such a good job of providing an engaging, text-focused analysis! Thanks for shining some light on this important subject, and I’ll keep an eye out for more of your videos in the future!

[@StudyofSwords]

Hey, glad you liked it!

[@Zolkrn179]

Just wanted to say that I'm very thankful for your channel for introducing me to anime studies and other academic texts in general like the ones mentioned in this video. It's become a new passion of mine. I just started reading Lyotard for the first time the other day and was super stoked when I saw this pop up on my feed. I've been increasingly interested in reading more on postmodernism ever since I was first introduced to Lyotard and Baudrillard from Database Animals. I definitely don't buy into all this BS surrounding the term from people like Hicks and Peterson and I do hope to one day have a better understanding of these writers like Derrida and Baudrillard as I do resonate a lot with their ideas from what I've briefly read about them so far. Thank you for all your hard work bro🙏. GOATd video as always.

[@StudyofSwords]

Glad you enjoyed it, despite it not being anime related, and it's quite gratifying to know that the channel has, if only in a small way, contributed to your curiosity. So thanks for that!!!

[@ManlyMenAndSam]

I was expecting a rehash of CCK Philosophy’s video, but was pleasantly surprised. You provide quite a convincing argument without even touching on his treatment of the rest of the Western Canon. I look forward to seeing what you make next!

[@StudyofSwords]

Glad you enjoyed it! The benefit of doing the "lit" review is seeing what others have already talked about, and where there may be gaps to offer "fresh" critique, so it's nice to see that working out. Yeah, the reason for the specificity of this video was because I'm more familiar with postmodern theory than with early-modern philosophy (plus this was something covered in the other videos, and one I didn't discuss because it was just focused on Hicks presentation of Kant) and it happened that I was doing some research for another video and ended up surveying texts on Postmodernism generally, which led me to finally read Hicks. The focus of the video emerged as a result of how EP is marketed - as a text to introduce postmodern theory to a readership which has little previous experience of the topic which is then leveraged to explain everything conservatives/reactionaries see as being "wrong with contemporary society."

[@Ricky-Spanish]

Videos debunking pseudo-intellectual hacks AND Marxist readings of FFVII?! SUBSCRIBED

[@StudyofSwords]

There are tens, tens of us! And thanks for the sub!

[@AGirlyBoi]

Hicks trying not to take a philosopher out of context or misrepresent them: *impossible*

[@StudyofSwords]

Somehow I think he'd be surprisingly reliable at representing Ayn Rand 🙃

[@AGirlyBoi]

@@StudyofSwords Oh yea I forgot about her, I think I'd offend him if I said she wasn't a philosopher XD btw I love your analysis of his sources and text and showing where he misrepresents

[@StudyofSwords]

@@AGirlyBoi lol. And thanks. Glad you enjoyed the video!

[@nik90001]

> The world does not speak, only we do. As someone who doesn't know anything about anything, that sounds right to me. But what about stuff like, "2 is a prime number"? Like, is that a "description" - so it comes from me - or is that just the way the world is? It feels kind of funny. Kind of half way between. Like if I flipped it a bit it could be either. If prime-ness is just a label that's useful for people, sure, it comes from me. But if prime-ness is something intrinsic to numbers then it's real. And prime-ness is something intrinsic to numbers. Or, I think so. There's math that only works with prime numbers and that's real. It's not just in my head. But does that math matter? Is *it* real? Maybe all of that math's in my head. Our head. We do all agree on it. Does that matter? You can use the math to predict the way real things work. Does that matter? Does that make it more real? Where can I read more? This sounds fun.

[@StudyofSwords]

In the pinned comment under the video, I have listed some texts which I think offer a lot in the way of introducing postmodern theory/theorists. One of those texts, "A Primer to Postmodernity" by Joseph Natoil, has a chapter which I think might be useful in your particular line of inquiry. It's chapter 9, "Postmodernity's War with Science", and it involves a simulated debate between a "scientist" and a "postmodernist" with some other "voices" interjecting. The text is available digitally if you know where to look. ; D On the other hand, Rorty was a lot more explicit in his anti-realist positions than the other three theorists Hicks discusses, so certainly "Contingency, irony, and Solidarity" (where that quote about "the world" comes from) wouldn't be a bad place to start with him.

[@InukCF]

Fantastic video contributing to online discourse about Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism." Your exploration of Hicks' dishonest misuse of quotes was insightful! The example with Lilla and Derrida was remarkably alarming. It was also really interesting that you included the section about the Atlas Society at the end, because that already would have been enough for most people to dismiss the book altogether, but you spent a lot of time going through what the book argued about postmodernism. You did a good job contextualizing the quotes far better than Hicks by looking through the chapters they're from and reading longer passages from the sections used by Hicks. Lastly, it was insightful how you looked at what was excluded by Hick! You had a lot of interesting commentary on Baudrillard because you went through a lot of his work. I don't hear many people talk about Integral Reality.

[@StudyofSwords]

I'm something of a Baudrillardian myself, so I'll use any opportunity to talk about him, and his quote on integral reality is both useful in presenting an anti-realist position while simultaneously foreclosing the most typical response to the anti realist position. I might just make a video about how to get into Baudrillard eventually because I think the issue most people have is they start with Simulacra and Simulation and that's decidedly not a great choice, but I digress. One of the resosns I started with the "lit" review was that it offered viewer's an opportunity to also see what has been said about the text and how Hicks has responded. A defense which is appealed to, one I addressed in the video, is that by focusing on Hicks using a small publisher (and then self publishing), not having "academic" reviews, and dismissing his arguments without really engaging with them, it's very easy to just go "bad faith!" and move on. So I really wanted to be thorough with my critique by looking at the evidnece Hicks uses to represent his version of postmodern theory. To this end, because I wanted to prevent my own critique from being easily dismissed by cherry picking (as I only use one example for each theorist, because it's a video essay), I created and made available a 45 page appendix where I look at every citation Hicks makes and evaluates them, and he is remarkably consistent in being dishonest. So if nothing else, I can't be accused of not engaging with the text and acting in bad faith. I appreciate your thoughtful comment!

[@vascosemedo7545]

@StudyofSwords you said that "Simulacra and simulation" is not a good choice for the people that begin to study "post-modernism theory". So can you give me an advice about what kind of Baudrillard book's are easier to understand and consequently beggining to read at basic level?

[@StudyofSwords]

@@vascosemedo7545 Ah, uh. Where Baudrillard fits into postmodernism/ as a postmodern theorist is contentions among Baudrillard scholars. So if you're looking for an intro text for postmodern theory more broadly, I'd suggest either Joseph Natoli's "A Primer to Postmodernity", which is written to be very accessible, albeit with a uniquely idiosyncratic style. The other suggestion would be Steven Best and Douglas Kellner's "Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations" which is a bit denser but also covers theorists like Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze and Guattari, and Baudrillard. If, on the other hand, you were interested in reading Baudrillard, the best intro text would be "The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact" which covers a broad range of Baudrillard's theory while being fairly readable. If you're looking for something shorter the essay "The Evil Demon of Images" is a good choice. Good luck, and thanks for the comment!

[@vascosemedo7545]

@@StudyofSwords Thank you for your suggestions. I already subscribe your channel. I've already seen that you make so accurate critiques, supported in things that you really read and this make a difference: If we are honest with ourselves, we consequently are honest with others. Good job!

[@StudyofSwords]

Appreciate it!

[@lukedmoss]

Oh yea. I am so ready for this. Only just became aware of Hicks and my sus-ometer went off immediately. He's just got the vibe of those Christian apologists who deny evolution. This is my first video of yours btw Instant subscribe

[@StudyofSwords]

Hey glad to be of assistance! And thanks for the sub 🙇 Hicks is, funnily enough, a strident atheist (his fundamental position on Kant is that in order to justify his continued belief in God, Kant attacked reason, which ultimately resulted in Postmodernism).

[@aqualucasYT]

All my homies hate Stephen Hicks

[@StudyofSwords]

And with good cause.

[@CH4R10T_TV]

This is a fantastic video. I'm glad more people are putting in the work to address the misinfo around PoMo furthered by people like Hicks. I thought I'd leave a comment affirming what you're doing in case anyone is unkind. Videos like this take a ton of work to research and write, and this one was absolutely worth doing.

[@StudyofSwords]

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it. 🙇 As of yet, the video doesn't seem to have breached the containment of sympathetic viewers, and so all of the comments have been quite supportive. I'll be honest though, given the kinds of negative/dismissive comments CCK Philosophy has (and continues to get) on his video on EP, I was as thorough as I could be, beyond simple scholastic rigour and transparency, to preempt easy/hand waving dismissals of the video. So I welcome responses from Hicks sympathizers. Appreciate the comment!

[@hulk10086]

I'm very much in the group you described at the end. No philosophy background, but wants to understand / read about postmodernism. Could you recommend some secondary literature to me? Something that is maybe a little bit more accessible than the primary texts? Thank you!

[@StudyofSwords]

Ah, well thanks for watching! Two texts I'd highly recommend to anyone who wants to learn about postmodern theory would be: "A Primer to Postmodernity" by Joseph Natoli. It was written for people who lack any background in philosophy or critical theory more specifically, and so is very accessible. It is, however, written with a, uh let's call it "playfully postmodern" framing device. The other suggestion would be: "Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations" by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. It's a bit denser than Natoli's text, it is written with an undergraduate readership in mind, but it's still very accessible. It's structured around individual theorists (Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari, and also some broader examinations of where Postmodernism fits with contemporary academic streams like marxism, feminism, critical theory (more broadly) and so on. In terms of availability, they are both no longer in print (afaik), but they aren't too difficult to get aftermarket. And of course, there are usually ways of obtaining digital versions in the wake of the unavailability of physical copies. As you're now the second person to ask, I'll post a pin with a copy of this at the top of the comments. I didn't want to include recommendations in the video proper because it didn't really fit the content and pacing, and I figured people would ask anyway.

[@alohm]

Excellent work. Thank your for sharing.

[@StudyofSwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@ConvincingPeople]

Oh god, having seen Jonas Čeika's dissection of Hicks' work way back, I know this is going to be… is "fun" the right word here?

[@StudyofSwords]

Well, as fun as revealing how unsubstantiated Hicks claims about postmoderism can be.

[@subcitizen2012]

Maybe ditch the sound effects brother, unnecessary and will save you time. Yeah, Hicks is, similar to Jordan Peterson (both Canadian... coincidence?) are the greatest postmodernists of all time. They're talking incomplete information and using it to deconstruct a mera narrative they don't fully understand, all whilst appealing to the enlightenment. It's a really sad irony, conservative postmodernists don't even know they're post modernists and find themselves peddling their own nihilism for money. Philosophy is supposed to be about discovering truth and observing phenomenon, naming, describing, and exploring them and their implications. Philosophy is not supposed to be dogmatic or prescriptive, and when it's not, it's really unfair to critique it like that. Some people think it is, and that's a viable critique to get into when it raises, but such a critique on postmodernism would be a critique on philosophy itself, or practically anything else for that matter. And I just adore how they forget that things like socialism were also about society, economics, and history, and politics, not just philosophy. Where it's flawed in its various politics and economic prescriptions and worthy of criticism for that, it shouldn't be wholesale discarded along with postmodern philosophy arbitrarily when both of their criticism and allusions are of high and imperative value. If only thinkers like these could build careers out of building on what came before instead - ironically, deconstructing everything - maybe our moment in history as of let's wouldnt be snagged on these cold war anxiety hangups. I suspect Jordan Peterson must've had Hicks on his night stand while he lost his mind the first time.

[@StudyofSwords]

I'll keep your suggestion about the sound effects in mind. I avoided the inclusion of Peterson in the intro and throughout, because I wanted to focus on Hicks, and other videos which talk about this text tend to include him, which provides an "out" so to speak to dismiss the criticism as "more Peterson ad hom" (Hicks has relied on this strategy a number of times). With that said I think a very strong case can be made that Peterson's endorsement of Hicks and this book have impacted its popularity more than anything else, and they're still riding the wave, so to speak. Appreciate the feedback 🙇

[@ghfudrs93uuu]

"they're using incomplete information and disconstructing a mera narrative they don't fully understand" So, you're saying these two completely mastered the art of the nietzschean genealogy? Anyway, that's pretty post-modern.

[@hughcaldwell1034]

@@StudyofSwords I agree about cutting the sound effects, particularly the keyboard and pen stuff accompanying quotes. It's rather distracting in a context where concentration is paramount, particularly since I'm blind and can't read along, but also have trouble processing speech over background noise. All that being said, rather enjoyed the content and pacing of the video.

[@StudyofSwords]

@@hughcaldwell1034 Ah, well sorry about that. I did my best to balance the narration and sfx so that the later was still audible under the speech. I include the sfx to add some texture to my videos, so to speak, and particularly in this case where the visuals were comprised of a large amount of text on screen and so not particularly "engaging".

[@hughcaldwell1034]

@@StudyofSwords It's okay. There's definitely an art to it, and I recognise that my experience isn't exactly typical.

[@Y0UT0PIA]

Solid critique of Hicks, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that the thesis that pomo is in large part the result of a certain kind of disillusionment with Marxist materialist metaphysics is entirely wrong. It's just not a 'conspiracy' but rather a very reasonable progression from a kind of modernist, rationalistic outlook on epistemics and politics that had become obviously implausible.

[@StudyofSwords]

Oh absolutely. The point in the video was that disillusionment with Marxism/actually existing socialism didn't then necessitate a shift in strategy to backdoor socialism as a long term project into the academy, which is Hicks central thesis. But Hicks can't use a term like "post-marxist" without giving up the game, so it's not something which appears in his book (and hence why I only off-handedly mention it when speaking about Baudrillard's bibliography from Mirror of Production on.

[@979JuJu]

Most likely a blessing but I haven't touched Stephen Hicks. That being said, I am interested in reading about postmoderism. Do you have any recs? Admitelly, I only made it 10 mins into this, so if the answer is in the video, sorry in advance 😅. Giving you the video like! 👍🏽

[@StudyofSwords]

Jospeh Natoli's "A Primer to Postmodernity" is very accessible, and Steven Best & Douglas Kellners "Postmodern Theory: Critical Investigations" is more academically oriented and dense while being pretty accessible as well.

[@rutsugo]

LESS GOOOO NEW VIDEO!!!!!

[@StudyofSwords]

It's a departure from my normal content, but I hope you enjoy(ed) it!

[@iNerdier]

Please consider not adding the sound effects to other videos or heavily reducing the volume, they were oddly distracting to what was otherwise an enlightening video.

[@StudyofSwords]

You're the third person to mention this, and admittedly, I always seem to have some issue with the sound editing, but I'll keep that in mind for future videos. Glad you found it informative!

[@joeiechristiansantana9641]

@@StudyofSwords Yeah, just be subtle about it. Though, tbf, I watch Captain Disillusion, and that dude has a lot, and I do mean a lot, of sound effects, that it sorta makes you unfocused with what he was saying.

[@nickbtggl4396]

As far at I can tell Hicks is a "realist" opposed to anything that threatens his world view. I argue this in the comments of kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4aZiZKodpucl9Esi=yrjytoQgl7n8ClaD when i change that Hicks has a 'No True Scotsman' approach to categorising and critiquing post modernity. In my reading of Hicks, if he doesn't agree with it it's Post Modern.

[@StudyofSwords]

Doing the Lord's work in that comment section. But it's always gratifying to see one's assertions verified in the wild, so to speak. People who have no experience with postmodern theory and who learn about it through Hicks are going to believe him. He is an expert, after all, he is the credentialed philosopher. Why would he lie? Sounds like duplicitous postmodernists to me!

[@nickbtggl4396]

@@StudyofSwords 🤣

[@re-existentialism8151]

It's me. I'm afraid of Frederic Jameson! (Big books ; ;)

[@StudyofSwords]

😱

[@VladimirPutin-cd4cl]

The irony could not be greater: Explaining Postmodernism is a "postmodernist" work par excellence in almost the exact straw-man sense in which the book defines it: dishonest rhetoric utilized in order to hammer in a narrative motivated by a dogmatically and uncritically held political ideology. Absolute projection. The only difference is that Hicks pretends to be an advocate of "standards of Reason and Serious Scholarship" (while violating them in every paragraph in most obscene fashion) instead of attacking them, and that he is not a Marxist but a fanatical Randroid. If it is so easy to be "postmodern" without affirming it, why should one affirm it? Wouldn't this be like liar confessing that one is a liar? Some food for thought. *** The main problem in debunking nonsense like Hicks's is that it is unlikely to have much effect once the virus is out: anyone capable of being convinced by junk scholarship as profoundly debased as Explaining Pomo, is very unlikely to be able to grasp an argument that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the book is garbage. Classical Dunning Kruger logic: there is a level of ignorance at which the ignorant is too ignorant to grasp any argument proving his ignorance. Does a single serious person take Hicks seriously? I doubt. I read half of the book (it was enough), and as to its quality of scholarship, it was probably the worst printed thing I've ever held in my hands. I mean, no serious scholar EVER uses quotes in the manner Hicks does, without any exegetic discussion, discussion, dialectics, etc (for comparison, take Sokal and Brickmond: they are quite careful in this regard, whatever you think of their readings otherwise). Even if you haven't read Derrida, Rorty, or whatnot and know nothing about them, or even if you're familiar with them and regard as charlatans, if your nose doesn't react, there is something seriously wrong with it.

[@StudyofSwords]

I'll be honest, and another commentor linked to a discussion they had under a video featuring Hicks, that people without any knowledge of the topic will see "Professor", "PHD", etc., and simply take Hicks at his word. And "nature abhors a vaccum" so people will fill in the gaps in knowledge with whatever is at hand, and that's often Hicks book. Yeah, in terms of individual impact, I'm a tiny channel, so any impact I have will almost certainly be statistically insignificant, but look at it this way, I've already had a few people ask for resources who otherwise may not have, and that's really all one could hope for. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

[@subcitizen2012]

YES

[@StudyofSwords]

Very concise!

[@BecomeUncancellable]

LoL

[@StudyofSwords]

Thanks. I thought "Atlas Shilled" was pretty good too.

[@HoradrimBR]

Descartes onwards was bad for philosophy in general. These so called "postmodernists" are more "ultramodernists" and post, really...

[@StudyofSwords]

It's really dependent on who you're speaking about, when they're writing, and so on and so on. One of the fundamental issues with Hicks accounting is treating postmodern theory as a singular, static thing in itself, rather than as an amalgam of different theories tilting towards related and perhaps even reconcilable explanations for postmodernity. But, and this is the important bit relating to this video. This isn't a defense of postmodern theory, it's a critique of a text seeking to inform an audience about something called postmodernism, and the reasons it fails to do that. Speaking frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find a text which approaches anything close to a full throated defense of postmodernism, that was one of the pretty revealing things I encountered while researching for this video. Thanks for the comment though!

[@spelcheak]

Imagine making this video and calling someone else “bad faith”.

[@joeiechristiansantana9641]

Wait, what's bad faith about this vid?

[@StudyofSwords]

You haven't watched the video, have you? If you had, you might have attempted a more substantive critique than the "pot/kettle manoeuvre." I've engaged with this text deeply, examined the arguments/claims being made, read the source(s) of information Hicks used to justify those claims, and then demonstrated why those arguments/claims don't follow from his evidence. For every citation from the four central figures he uses to make claims about postmodern theory (that's Appendix A in the video notes, mentioned twice in the video). If you want to be critical of Postmodern theory, that's fine. There are abundant critiques, even polemics, available - I mention several of them in my video. But if you care about scholastic transparency and academic rigour, you deserve better than what Hicks offers.

[@ggefryg]

I think he’s reaching too much, consciously and systematically evading the central point of Hicks thesis on Postmodernism. This is not even intellectually dishonest because he doesn’t even attempt to be fair(clearly in bad faith). But hey, it’s all about being “scholastic transparency”.

[@StudyofSwords]

@ggefryg The textual evidence Hicks uses to construct his thesis is a combination of deliberate misinterpretation and outright fabrication. This is demonstrated consistently throughout the video as well as in the appendix. So unless you think expecting Hicks to actually read the texts he cites is unreasonable and/or unfair, your assertions have no merit. Hicks central thesis is refuted in two ways: the first of which is demonstrating that Hicks representation of postmodern theory is not supported by the evidence he provides. The second, is that there were no scholastic barriers to being a socialist/Marxist in the academy during the period postmodern theory was promulgated and popularised, which would have necessitated the need to backdoor socialism in the first place, as the second half of the video also demonstrates. Thanks for the engagement though.