Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks: Chapter 1: What Postmodernism Is

This audiobook edition of Explaining Postmodernism is read by the author.
To listen to more of the audiobook on KZbin, visit: / epaudiobook
To download MP3s of the audiobook or for more information, visit Dr. Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism page:
www.stephenhicks.org/publicati...
Other links:
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy

[@johnbrown4568]

Dr. Hicks has produced a marvelously detailed examination of Postmodern philosophy. Thank you Dr. Hicks for publishing this work.

[@susacp1]

Post modernism allows privileged intellectuals to “resist” the oppression of capitalist society, without any of that messy business of putting your body on the line to actually effect change.

[@jrob_drums]

Head on nail

[@tomatofeind2019]

+susacp1 What equates to 'putting your body on the line'?

[@nataliap2705]

You need the thought before you can have the action. Ideas are weapons too. this is the way the intellectual minds talk... by defining concepts with words. Giving cultural zeitgeists words like postmodernism or modernism or classicism so we can actually discuss them. At least there is interest to even do that in some part of society... whether this has ever contributed to political change is what prompted me to respond to your comment as we apparently disagree.

[@sweetpadre]

I heard enough. Time to purchase the book.

[@fraternitas5117]

You get to learn how postmodernism is trash in six minutes, a wonderful explanation!

[@James-ll3jb]

If were able to understand it you would see how true it is.

[@notloki4169]

@@James-ll3jb they don't even believe in truth you clown.

[@thunkjunk]

Of course. Because in pm you only have your own personal subjective "truth".

[@Ostsol]

How can post-modernists deny the possibility of an objective interpretation of literature whilst simultaneously asserting what something is "really about?" I'll listen to the rest of this series, but right now this issue is really bugging me.

[@diegomorales8616]

if you must know, he addresses that directly in the last chapter: it's a tactic that seems to bamboozle and buy time.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Hicks points this out later, but he's right on: Trying to understand how postmodernists "think" or "know" anything is always a problem. The mindset sees "contradiction" as a virtue. The correct way to see and understand postmodernism is to understand how it's a rationalization for political goals, which is why Stephen Hicks requires a whole chapter to explain how it originates from the failure of socialism. If history has shown, objectively that your ideas and goals are evil, and you cannot prove it wrong, to keep on believing what you want, you have to deny objectivity and history, that way you can't be criticized. In a childish sense, postmodernism is smart people with juvenile mindsets trying to tell people how they should live, without the evidence or credibility to make such claims. I hope that helps.

[@JAYDUBYAH29]

That’s exactly it! The “performative contradiction.” If there is no truth then how can we say there is no truth as if THAT is true?!

[@Pdrum2]

Because it's absurd

[@Romeo-le2ez]

I recommend watching jonas ceika's video on this book it pretty much clears up a lot of misconceptions about postmodernism and counters a lot of what hicks is saying

[@nvman2262]

Every one Criticizing this should now go listen to Rick Rodricks lectures because if you think it’s really easy to tell what is true nowadays there are some good examples to report that

[@tinelle100]

thank you

[@EmilyDickinson1000]

Thanks for this--book costs 1000+.

[@Waibublz]

My god. It just absolutely clicked for me after listening to this. We're currently in a philosophical war of modernism versus post-modernism in the west. That's actually the root cause of all the political turmoil and polarization in the western world. What we're seeing right now, on the left particularly, is the rise of the post-modern world view and it's attempt to eradicate modernism. This is why I've never been able to understand the world view of most of these people. I've been twisting myself in and out using reason and logic to try and understand where they're coming from only to conclude "I don't FUCKING get it" every time. But they don't actually believe in logic and reason, and so their world view isn't rooted in reason and logic and cannot be understood by people using these concepts. They think only of logic and reason as some sort of linguistic tool-to-power intended to be used to oppress other groups and further the power of ones own. These people can't be persuaded with logical and reasonable arguments because all they think you're doing is trying to exact power over them. It makes so much fucking sense now. Thank you for this! We need to win this philosophical war or we're fucking doomed, that much is clear.

[@drewpeterson587]

Waibublz I am right there with you. Especially after how Jordan Peterson talks about dialog being something post modernists can't partake in, as it is part of oppressive activity to recognize rational thought. Truly fucked up shit because you can't reason with them. It's left up to each person themselves to recognize what is true.

[@coltonc7832]

Ay guys I'm sorry this is five years too late but Modernism ended when it was brought to its logical political/utopian expression found in Fascism in Italy, and Totalitarianism in Germany and the Soviet Union. We are still living under the spirit of the Post-Modern, as seen in the Culture Wars arguments over the meanings of words and narratives, contemporary content (and moreover the flattening out of craft/art into content) such as Stranger Things and the novel kind of humor of comedians like Norm Macdonald or Sam Hyde, that one influencer guy who just eats raw meat. You can't escape the Post-Modern. Any hopes towards a Kaczynski-esque return to the pastoral, or the Accelerationist fetish for a hard reset, are impossibly naive.

[@Aw3someOpZ]

Same mate. I always laughed at news headlines like, “math is a system of racism, women is out birthing person is in.” Like bruh what? It also explains why people still talk about orange man, even though he’s been effectively muzzled in the mainstreamed. Guy doesn’t put up with the bullshit the woke weirdos are peddling. Any reasonable person can dislike the guy but they treat him like an existential threat. The discourse in the last 6 years have been about the fact doesn’t care about your feelings vs my feelings don’t care about your facts.

[@Knaeben]

It can be seen from this statement how clever propaganda shuts the thinking process down.

[@heycallmecj3561]

Jordan Peterson brought me here!

[@James-ll3jb]

See how Hicks sank him.

[@qwertyqart]

greatly appreciate jordan peterson's recommendation of this book.

[@diamondgames635]

Pls read a real book on postmodernism. This book is full of false claims. And many without sources.

[@qwertyqart]

@@diamondgames635 can you give a few examples of false claims from this book

[@diamondgames635]

@@qwertyqart i can but not better than this video can. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@James-ll3jb]

This guy led Peterson into innumerable errors. Hicks placement of Kant is pure crackpotism.

[@djanitatiana]

Here today, I learned a new oxymoron: "Postmodern intellectual".

[@James-ll3jb]

Like good mojo?🤣

[@Brutaltronics]

Anybody here because of professor Jordan Peterson?

[@nicolegarcia-gb4cu]

Brutaltronics me!

[@56jmoney]

Yeah, he mentioned this in one of his lectures; so here I am.

[@popeyethepirate5473]

Brutaltronics damn right bucko!

[@andthereisntone1]

I'm cleaning my mind of nonsense, bucko!

[@peterhowell1112]

Yes

[@jaznseedski]

Doesn't the idea of "modern" imply something static that time flows thru? Like the word "now"? The word Modern represents a more loosely structured look at the idea of Now. Yes? Am I wrong here? Modern refers to a wider swath of the timeline, but that swath represents (let's say) maybe Now to 15 years ago, and as time progresses so does the chunk of the timeline that represents the Modern. So Modern in 1950 could've meant '50 - '35...or in 2017, 2017 - 2002, as opposed to Now, which refers to this current moment to 15 seconds ago, or something. So Modern is a larger Now, but still a certain conduit thru which time flows. So post-modern would mean after-the-larger-now. Which is referring to the future by saying post? Can someone help me with this? I don't even get the name! I understand they considered themselves to come after the Modernism movement, but Modernism is kind of dumb way to refer to anything that doesn't continually update itself and apply to the static chunk of the timeline I mentioned above yes? WTF. I just want to get this better and solicit opinions. Thanks.

[@marcpadilla1094]

In other words a framework of ideas and disciplines for reference only. Solutions are just more ideas or ideals that replace old ideas and ideals as if somehow a universal connection will ultimately become the best of all possible outcomes. Irreverent and pretentious is more likely.

[@apexxxx10]

kool. kiitos.

[@jl2200]

Daryl Revok--Exactly. Derrida; Without center or origin, all is discourse. OTOH, this doesn't disprove center or origin, outside the linguistic universe. It simply means the linguistic universe has no center or origin which cannot be contested or deconstructed.

[@genevievenangit3836]

I believe, so I see ;-)

[@truebomba]

My God, this book is an example of misconceptions, misinformation, and misquotation for politically charged reasons.

[@craigpointon8394]

Why do you think so?

[@KommentarSpaltenKrieger]

it surprises me that the author is a philosopher. how can reason be objective, yet at the same time constitute subjectivity and thus, the individual? one can reasonably say that facts (certain products of reasoning) are intersubjectively verifiable or even objectively true, but nothing more.

[@ThuyPham-oj9zy]

Well they got into my phone change all my stuff

[@insme]

I can see where the SJWs get the idea of white oppression and such other frivolous ideas from.

[@End-Result]

shut the fuck up, edgelord

[@diamondgames635]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@Aw3someOpZ]

The always flock to Europe on their ideals but kindly ignore when Genghis khan oppressed the shit out of everyone back in his day. Oppressors aren’t just white.

[@captlechuck]

Damn, postmodernism, you scary!

[@philosopher24680]

That cracked me up but I think in a weird way postmodernism dodged a bullet by coming "late to the party" of 20th century totalitarian ideologies. Unlike fascism, communism, and/or fundamentalism it never took control of a state and thus never fully exposed its horrific nature to the political mainstream. As a result "intellectuals" can still seriously identify with it without being thought of as terrifying.

[@abstractnonsense3253]

Postmodernism combines the bad aspects of all political ideologies I've came across. It is so nihilistic, poisonous and hateful that it would lead to the collective suicide any nation under its control. Since the left was being invaded by these pricks, it makes me feel less bad that Trump won.

[@jannikthorsen3531]

I think your are only partly right. The trick the postmodernists have pulled is indroctinating a whole generation of politicians, bureaucrats, teachers, etc. They took over the cultural and educational institutions, and there by made a slow and gradual takeover possible. It was a "long march through the institutions".Its no coincidence that this happened in the educational system, with the onset some time in the 1960s. Today we are witnessing this takeover thorugh identity politics and a dismantling("deconstruction") of all traditional western and european culture.

[@abstractnonsense3253]

Yes, you're right. Their strategy wasn't a frontal invasion. It was indoctrination and infiltration. As Jordan Peterson says, some authoritarians push you little by little, slowly. And when you wake up you're already in deep trouble. As someone coming from the "enlightenment" left myself, and expelled by these postmodernist leftists, I am horrified by what they did. They took good ideas, such as equality, and perverted them into a nasty form of vindictive compensation for what dead people from one group did to other dead people of other group.

[@Romeo-le2ez]

Post-modernism is an era not an ideology

[@harshilsangal6226]

Postmodernism is pretty fun to play around with, but things get ridiculous at 32:06

[@James-ll3jb]

Not at all....

[@winstonsmith9533]

Let's just throw out reason and let's use irony nothing is true...a-hmm!

[@diamondgames635]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@ThuyPham-oj9zy]

They are wirk together John phone

[@Tenome187]

but the planes who are flying might still be just in our heads...

[@triplea657aaa]

I think postmodernism has interesting and good truths, but most postmodern thinkers are either lacking in their mathematical and logical capabilities or they merely don't care and are merely using the framework of postmodernism as a tool without actually using postmodernism. I'll give an example: the idea that no idea is inherently better than another inevitably gives you liberalism or at least a libertarian ethic, this since the only ideas that even can be lesser than others are those which inhibit other ideas since no idea can be known to be correct. This of course assumes truth being valuable, meaning we are already at least somewhat in a pragmatic frame, but if we are not in such a frame I fail to see any reason to do anything at all as I see no other frames compatible with the postmodern ethic.

[@jefferywyss8740]

The "interesting" and "good truths" of postmodernism are actually quite banal, even trivial.

[@mediatool9596]

There absolutely IS an objective reality. Words DO have consistent meaning and definition.

[@RAndrewKReed]

If it's only a question of will...let's impose white, male, western ways and be done with all the foolishness.

[@terryobrien9846]

Post modernism has four main heads. Feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism and socialism. There could be more, and I'm open to them.

[@suwowar3348]

neoconservatism

[@terryobrien9846]

Dwj War Interesting. It's not an ideology I know too much about. From the little reading I just did, there doesn't seem to be a clear ideology to it, but sort of a general mix of ideas.

[@suwowar3348]

Most neocons were trotkyist in their student days.

[@terryobrien9846]

Good point. Will ponder this further.

[@thewretchedexcess3203]

feminism and socialism predate post-modernism by 200 years you idiot

[@alanrobinson100]

Any chance we can view it as a critique on epistemology and not an ideological war of extermination, where those who lose will suffer spiritual eradication. We don't need to be fundamentalists but can utilise the beneficial aspects of any ideology. It's dangerous to become idol worshippers.

[@johnbrusseau8012]

How Post Modernism is Essentially Reactionary Reactionary constructs are generated by the subjectivity inherent in unresolved fear. Post Modernism essentially takes the position that all reality is of a relative nature. There is no absolute reality. This idea is a reaction to the experience of the damaging psuedo absolute rreality that is brutally imposed upon people, for all of the subjective reason one subjectively does things. The brutalizer believes he ios being absolutely objective, while actually being quite subjective, and thus does not see that the brutal things he is doing is not actually a result of some absolute reality, but the expression of his own personal subjectiv eissues. In reaction to thi terrible experience one feels a need to defend oneself agains all assertions of absolute truth. The fact that there cannot exist relative truth apart from a framework of absolute truth, does not occur to the perosn with the reactionary Post Modern delusion. It feels comforting to him to say there is no such thing as objectivity (in either degree or in whole), and so he has no difficulty holding onto the self-contradictory notion that there is no such thing as objective (or absolute) truth. {Obviously, the statement that there is no such ting as absolute truth is an assertion of an absolute truth.} While it is obvious to anyone with some measure of objectivity that our human thinking involves a great deal of subjective truth, this does not imoply that there is no such thing as objective truth. Rather it implies there is, and it does in the following way. Our consciousness is like a wax seal. The absolute truth of actual things outside of our consciousness, which leave an impression in our wax seal consciousness, does in fact exist, and the admittedly relative impressions, the subjective impressions left in our human consciousness imply there is. Now there are imperfections (due to the presence of emotional baggage and unconscious associations) that render our impression of reality even less accurate, but this does not ague against trying to get an impression of absolute reality, or trying to get some degree of objectivity, it agues for doing so. A Post modern person is emotionally reacting to past unresolved wounding done at the hands of people pretending to be objective, while simultaneously subjectivley moving to brutally victimize them. Post Moderism does tend to contain a seed of objective truth, even though it is reactionary, because there are times when we are so entrenched within false certainty that the only way to gain some measure of objectivity about our false certainty is to be faced with the extreme fixation on the existence of subjective reality that post moderism is so eloquent in expressing. A false sence of certinty is such an enormous tendency in our species (every last one of us is plagued by far more false certainty then we would believe is possible). And as long as we resist the questioning of our certainties the Post Modern reactionary delusion will persist. In fact, the more we resist facing our false certainties, the more Post Modernism will thrive. Currntly Post Modernism is all the rage, especially in academic circles. Hmmm! No person is more certain that a post modernist. This is a enlightening irony. A. In Steven Hicks rebuttal of Post Modernism he sites psuedo certainties that are flawed syllogisms, such as the following. The US is (and other nations like them are) Capitalistic. The Soviet union is (and other nations like them are) socialistic. B. Capitalistic nations a more economically successful than Socialistic nations. C. Therefore capitolisim is more a success approach than socialism. The fallacy in this damaged syllogism is, of course that no nation is wholly capitalistic or socialistic. Thus one cannot say that the capitolism experienced in some nations did not thrive because of the presence of some forms of socialism. Government is itself a form of socialism, and certainly capitolistic societies have benefitted by the presence of governing bodies. And as the left frequently likes to point out, those collectively funded projects that fill out a community’s infrastructures are all socialistic endeavors. Thus the conclusion that capitalism is based upon a false premise and any certainty ecxpressed by those embracing such a conclusion will be fruaght with that kind of uncertainty that is engendered by relied upon fals-premises. I see in this video presentation both the flaws in post moderism (very eloquently defined by Steven) and the false and somewhat brutally condescending false certainty that has promoted the existence of (if not also given birth to) Post Moderism in the first place.

[@ownedinc4274]

I did not read this. That makes me smile.

[@generalkhalid1192]

I read it all and it is actually interesting

[@robertadme]

you on a board

[@bobbyjeangayheart360]

“Reason” says Foucault “is the ultimate language of madness”. That’s insane! On the other hand, Capitalism has turned into the love of money, the “source of all evils”. If a free market economy is only sustainable if we become avid consumers of “anything” while “Amusing ourselves to death” what choice do we have left? Our cherished ideals of liberty, equality and prosperity, were formulated by a tiny minority of ambitious white men in the 18th century. Their project of self empowerment were never meant for the masses.

[@James-ll3jb]

No it's not. Einstein said after his theories were used to create the atom bomb that "If I'd had to do it all over again, I'd have become a plumber."

[@jl2200]

Well, I suspect it takes formal training in philosophy to recognize complete fucking bullshit from piling it higher and deeper bullshit. The claim one doesn't not have be right, just interesting, is a false choice. One can clearly be wrong and uninteresting.

[@tomwoodthorpe5790]

Most people recognise the bullshit of postmodernism. They feel it in their heart and gut but can't necessarily articulate it to the satisfaction of career "intellectuals" who have spent their entire lives coming up with clever ways to justify the very worst parts of their nature.

[@davidwood5655]

Is Jordan Peterson a Postmodernist and does not know it?

[@jefferywyss8740]

No; no.

[@matthewsawtell4213]

it works but not anywhere near perfect or sustainable enough

[@matthewbartsh9167]

Hicks is using "modernism" in a sense that is unfamiliar to me. Please help me understand. What I understood by "modernism" (from reading The Blank Slate and some other awesome books by Steven Pinker) is the early form of postmodernism that is much the same as postmodernism except perhaps not being as extreme. Googling "modernism" failed to turn up anything supporting the definition that Hicks is using here, which seems to be Enlightenment thinking. Postmodernism does seem anti Enlightenment but modernism is not Enlightenment, I would have said. I would have agreed with this part of introduction in the Wikipedia article called "Modernism" : "Modernism is both a philosophical and arts movement that arose from broad transformations in Western society during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movement reflected a desire for the creation of new forms of art, philosophy, and social organization which reflected the newly emerging industrial world, including features such as urbanization, new technologies, and war. Artists attempted to depart from traditional forms of art, which they considered outdated or obsolete. The poet Ezra Pound's 1934 injunction to "Make it New" was the touchstone of the movement's approach. Modernist innovations included abstract art, the stream-of-consciousness novel, montage cinema, atonal and twelve-tone music, and divisionist painting. Modernism explicitly rejected the ideology of realism[a][2][3] and made use of the works of the past by the employment of reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody.[b][c][4] Modernism also rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists also rejected religious belief.[5][d] A notable characteristic of modernism is self-consciousness concerning artistic and social traditions, which often led to experimentation with form, along with the use of techniques that drew attention to the processes and materials used in creating works of art.[7]" This part of the article also fitted with my definition of modernism: "Differences between modernism and postmodernism By the early 1980s the Postmodern movement in art and architecture began to establish its position through various conceptual and intermedia formats. Postmodernism in music and literature began to take hold earlier. In music, postmodernism is described in one reference work as a "term introduced in the 1970s",[148] while in British literature, The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature sees modernism "ceding its predominance to postmodernism" as early as 1939.[91] However, dates are highly debatable, especially as according to Andreas Huyssen: "one critic's postmodernism is another critic's modernism."[149] This includes those who are critical of the division between the two and see them as two aspects of the same movement, and believe that late Modernism continues.[149] " The Tate.org says something similar: "The terms modernism and modern art are generally used to describe the succession of art movements that critics and historians have identified since the realism of Gustav Courbet and culminating in abstract art and its developments in the 1960s. Although many different styles are encompassed by the term, there are certain underlying principles that define modernist art: A rejection of history and conservative values (such as realistic depiction of subjects); innovation and experimentation with form (the shapes, colours and lines that make up the work) with a tendency to abstraction; and an emphasis on materials, techniques and processes. Modernism has also been driven by various social and political agendas. These were often utopian, and modernism was in general associated with ideal visions of human life and society and a belief in progress. By the 1960s modernism had become a dominant idea of art, and a particularly narrow theory of modernist painting had been formulated by the highly influential American critic Clement Greenberg. A reaction then took place which was quickly identified as postmodernism." I am not sure whether "reaction" is the right word here. Postmodernism seems to me to be a more extreme form of modernism, and not something in opposition to it. I guess it depends on how you define "reaction". Could someone help me understand, please?

[@mark4asp]

The problem with modernism is that most of what you'll read about it is wrong. Modernism is not a specific label one applies to ideas or philosophies. It is a term we apply to art, social movements and some ideas. Philosophy left certain questions unanswered or wrongly answered. Modernists and modernism tended to gloss over these bad answers. I'll argue that Hicks is himself inside the spirit of the modernist tradition - in the sense he's unhappy leaving these zombie answers uncriticized. Modernism must always turn back on itself and its own weaknesses, because it believes the riddle can, in theory, be answered. In contrast, the critics of modernism, don't even think these questions (with, so far, bad answers) should be raised.

[@mark4asp]

Modernism (as defined by pomo) was a tall story told by Critical Theorists and Postmodernists, so that they could criticize everything. The story goes: modernism is essentially the same thing as progressivism. It began with the Scientific Revolution and European Enlightenment. Proceeded with Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Psychology, Scientific reason, ... into the 19th and 20th century. In this story The Enlightenment is just a footnote in the history of Modernism. It's basically named after the notion that modern ideas are better ideas. Modernism (as defined by art) is a set of movements in culture which emphasize formalistic innovation.

[@matthewbartsh9167]

@@mark4asp "Modernism is not a specific label one applies to ideas or philosophies. It is a term we apply to art, social movements and some ideas." I stopped reading here.

[@syourke3]

Well if this is post-modernism, count me a modernist. How did such foolishness ever prevail in U S academia?

[@panbert8092]

Steven Yourke what this book is describing is not post-modernism, this entire book makes a massive straw man argument, post-modernism became popular because it genuinely made a lot of good points.

[@syourke3]

pan bert I think you’re correct. I didn’t realize it at first but now I do. I have not actually read the writers who are here lumped together as “post-modernism” but I call “bullshit”. The right wing does the same thing with Marx, a writer with whom I am much more familiar. If you want to know what someone actually thinks, read their work - don’t just depend on a third party to tell you about them. Jordan Peterson sane thing.

[@James-ll3jb]

This is the guy whose errors led Jordan Peterson into a pit.

[@cyberista]

Hicks shows ignorance of Post Modernism almost from the beginning - talking about it as if it is one thing, or that it completely displaces Modernism. It's unfortunate that Peterson just toes this line and can't be arsed to explore it properly.

[@leemoore5212]

The "no true postmodernist" counter-gambit.

[@brucezar2202]

If it can't be explained in about five minutes either you don't know it or its total b*******. I'll go with the latter.

[@Youdamana]

Talk about your will to power... insanity.

[@Signal_20]

Hicks makes a lot of unfounded assumptions. Like modernism being the factor in all these developments in society. He acts as if the modern era created commerce. Tell that to the Sumerians who had an active banking system and businesses based on leveraging capital. Tell Hippocrates that medicine was created during the modern age. Hicks falls prey to presentism and the curse of knowledge when he forms his biases. Those advancements were made during the modern era due to the structure of society. If you had those modern ideas in 2nd century BC, you'd have been sentenced to death as Socrates was. False cause fallacy riddled nonsense is what this is so far. I hope it gets better. And by better I mean more logically sound and less biased.

[@mark4asp]

Hicks is actually working with the assumptions made by others. The "unfounded assumptions" he makes are those made by Critical Theory, Postmodernism, Postcolonialism, Woke, and anti-Westernism. Because his disagreements with these movements are more fundamental, he'll gloss over the little things, so that he can take issue with their Big Ideas.

[@mark4asp]

Your criticism is a what-aboutism or red herring. It's a way to avoid dealing with the fundamentals of Hick's criticisms of Kant and those influenced by Kant.

[@gambettonsa4528]

What a load of BS, I'm a poor oppressed son of a bitch and even I disagree with this.

[@gregzeng]

Read Reading of a chapter of the book. Not a KZbin video at all: nothing visual; no graphics, no display of the spoken text. Boring lecture; no thinking allowed by the listener.

[@edwardskrod]

It's an audio book. What do you expect?

[@danivasquez2441]

Greg Zeng I'd be pretty pissed if there was commentary by the reader. It's an audiobook and clearly advertised as such.