Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks: Chapter 4: The Climate of Collectivism

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

[@TheWhitehiker]

A much, much needed historical expose of communism and socialism; good job, Stephen.

[@DivingDonut]

As a german: My country makes so much more sense now. Even today Germany is heavily collectivist in nature and the political parties divide themselves basically to left socialists, centrists (who do not deviate much from the social democrats), liberals and the right socialists are up and comming.

[@xit1254]

This is such an eye opening book. At last I am beginning to understand the corrupting influence of the anti-Enlightenment philosophers on the Western world view. They are the last gasp of the dying irrationalism of religiosity in the Western world. Hopefully it will finally die off in the near future.

[@TheWhitehiker]

Rejection of logical consistency in argument is a killer-- po-mo rejects this consistency, for example, radical feminism.@@patheally

[@philosopher24680]

Really nice chapter I'm a left-liberal welfare capitalist myself and I'm amazed by how very little ideological bias is in this book it's pretty much just reason and facts. I think if you want to make it a little more "fair" but still correct you should 1) Include Keynes with those who debunked Marxism to make it clear your book is focused on explaining postmodernism not laissez-faires capitalism. 2) When you say the social democrats, Marxists, and National Socialists had similar "themes" I know what you meant (they were all appealing to "socialism") but nonetheless make it clear that Marxism and National Socialism were far more similar to each other than social democrats were to either. I think a big reason former social democratic voters went for extreme parties is that they were growing increasingly weary of "reformism" and so on moved to extremes and less so due to heavy overlapse in theory.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

1. I don't think Keynes played much a role in the growth of postmodernism or had anything to do with postmodernism. The only reason why Stephen is bringing up Marx and Capitalism, is on ideological grounds as opposed to economic. 2. Once again, the both of the book isn't so much to explain politics, but rather the underlying philosophies that serve as their foundation. This book is mostly about the history of philosophy and then how it plays a role in intellectual development, which leads to changes in politics. He could probably do that it in another book.

[@YashArya01]

46:30 Kant on Collectivism and War 54:00 Johann Herder on multicultural relativism 1:00:30 Johann Fichte on education as socialization 1:15:05 Hegel on worshipping the State 1:23:43 From Hegel to the 20th Century 1:26:30 Right vs Left Collectivism in the 20th Century 1:36:30 The Rise of National Socialism: Who are the Real Socialists?

[@Macheako]

Absolutely spot on with some of the things you've said (I still have to listen to the second half but I was so enthralled by the first I had to let you know! lol). There's very little doubt that post-modernism has allowed certain ideologies to persist, when they otherwise should've been left to sands of time like the Dinosaurs. It's actually interesting to note here, while I don't prescribe to it myself, I've heard theories about how "ideas" are objects within themselves and like other organisms they work to keep themselves from going extinct. It would seem to me that post-modernism fits the bill quite well here. It's the perfect vessel by which people can hold onto their otherwise dated world views and live with the same convictions as the old philosophers that created such preposterous ideas. It's almost like post-modernism is the left's answer to 'God'. That is to say, it allows these people to remain so fully convinced in their beliefs and live with the same unexamined self-righteousness as theists do, but without the necessary backing of some god or creator. It gives these people their moral objectivity, but unknowingly to them, confines and expresses itself from a subjective and narrow perception. If I haven't already given it away lol I'm incredibly intrigued by this idea of leftists, progressives and post-modernists that so clearly adhere to the same abstract framework as the church that shunned them as children. They lash out with the same blind rage, they refuse to entertain any voice of dissent, and they use similar, though sometimes scarier, tactics of enforcing group conformity. These people are recreating the same world that they seek so hard to destroy and any/every attempt to warn them of their possible demise is only met with harsh, authoritarian-style demand for compliance, which in turn only makes their end even more inevitable...grab some popcorn people (: But yea, really really really really enjoy what this chapter so far; absolutely spot on!!! Thank you very much Mr. Hicks for sharing your ideas with me and I look forward to any future publishings!

[@jeviosoorishas181]

I think Dr. Hicks shows throughout the book that postmodernism has also influenced the right, it's just been more embraced more so by the left.

[@Macheako]

To be entirely fair, post-modernism seems like nothing more than smoke and guns masking an underlying motivation of "I don't wanna believe you!". This type of thinking is really nothing knew. People can doubt as much as they like. The whole idea of "Are we real or in a matrix?" is just another expression of this. All post-modernism did, which to be fair is incredibly dubious, is make such doubting claims validated by the institutions of knowledge, i.e. colleges & universities. So now when you argue people their overly-skeptical attitude can be validated on the sheer basis of post-modern thought and nothing else. Yet another "don't think, just believe what I believe" frame-work was adopted by man, what a shocker -_- But sorry to tangent Jevioso. Yea, it might have influenced the right, but like I said, doubting truth claims is nothing knew. The right started the doubting by refusing to listen to ANYTHING related to homosexuality and other sacrilege ideas. They're just partaking in their own kind of post-modernism. Basically, I understand this whole philosophical movement as being "Nothing can be known.....except X". It's contradictory in it's very opening statement. But it can be broken down a step further, and my understanding is "Only I, and those that think alike, have the only valid claim on truth and knowledge." Which, let's be real, has been the ongoing bull shit debate since the dawn of the time. New day, same shit. Seriously though, fuck these people. They're doing nothing but holding humanity back. But we still need to respect liberty above all, so.....I guess we'll just have to see where it leads lol.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

Matthew Morton This isn't entirely true. First of all, I'll agree this idea that truth is relative isn't old, in fact, it was the major theme that both Plato and Aristotle fought against in their writings due to the challenge of the Sophists (which Hicks implies are the forefathers of the postmodernists.) I think what Hicks tries to point out is how this kind of thinking evolved since the Enlightenment (postmodernism is almost anti-philosophy in it's nature), because it helps to explain the original source of the problem, because it is in fact not the norm. A civilization could not emerge if the people did not have some form of a unified view of truth, even if it was ultimately wrong...which tends to be much more of the norm. Another thing Hicks points out too, is that the reason why the left and right embraced postmodernism was it allowed them to subjugate the principles of the Enlightenment. For the right, it enabled them to maintain the respect for religion that was brutally under attack by Enlightenment thinkers and for the left it allowed them to carry on their never-ending desire to seek utopia through socialism.

[@OxAO]

Jevisoso said, "Dr. Hicks shows throughout the book that postmodernism has also influenced the right" I been looking for where he makes this point clear. I can't find where he shows the right uses collectivist views other then the general assumption that "fascism = right" which is incorrect.

[@jeviosoorishas181]

"Another thing Hicks points out too, is that the reason why the left and right embraced postmodernism was it allowed them to subjugate the principles of the Enlightenment. For the right, it enabled them to maintain the respect for religion that was brutally under attack by Enlightenment thinkers and for the left it allowed them to carry on their never-ending desire to seek utopia through socialism." Much of the right is dealt with in Chapter 4.

[@TheSteinmetzen]

It seems that thouse who espouse postmodernism, wish to go back to "the good old days". ala Rousseau. I have my doubts with this kind of thinking. Who really knows what the good old days were? or if waht they think could really have existed? What were the good old days, Middle Ages or Caveman times? In my opinion, Postmodernism is one of the largest heists ever to be propogated by man. It has sought to throw out the baby with the bath water, the way many hold up one memeplex above another seeking to glorify the totality of its monolithic idea.

[@YashArya01]

14:43 Back to Rousseau

[@YashArya01]

Rousseau quote state compulsion

[@milespotter8390]

I found the previous three chapters a very informatively clear and disinvested description of the beliefs of various thinkers, but I agree that from here on, this piece takes a much more ideological bent; one that makes many claim about people and their beliefs that, contrary to the previous chapters, I think many of the subjects would strongly deny is a valid summary or characterisation of their positions. It's a shame! (Then again, I'm sure many of the subjects might feel that such a departing from so-called "neutrality" is always inevitable anyway.)

[@jeviosoorishas181]

I think if you fully understood the first 3 chapters of his book, you'd understand why after chapter 3, which is entitled the "collapse of reason", why by chapter 4 all that you can do is offer an ideological critique, since by the time he's in chapter 4, reason itself, is considered to be just an ideology.

[@andrewbeatse8856]

J

[@bryanbrown292]

I found the first three chapters a VERY nice and compact summary of the roots of post modernism. Then we arrive at chapter 4. The political part. Much less interesting.

[@mikeborrelli193]

Political power is the very essence of Postmodernist thought and philosophy..

[@RobSinclaire]

1 Metaphysics 2 Epistemology 3 Human Nature/Ethics 4 Politics 5 Art/Aesthetics

[@jeviosoorishas181]

@Stephen Hicks At some point I think you are going to have to explore the Trump era and how many of the new ideas coming from Alt-Right intellectuals are embracing all the logic and rationale of postmodernism. A lot of people on the right I've heard who are fans of this book, unfortunately see it only as a manual for understanding leftism, they don't understand that the primary aspect of postmodernism isn't it's politics, but it's skepticism of reality and reason.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

I agree.

[@cornerbandit]

The last person who declared, " I didn't understand" ended up flying back to LA with $50K in their pocket and a scam well executed!

[@dukesofdevon]

See the next chapter. Exactly covers this.

[@mikewilliams4947]

Presente

[@YashArya01]

Collectivist right and left united against Locke

[@brucehunter4523]

Human beings were mostly solitary. Riiight.

[@Malumultimus]

The idea that there are people who think living in primitive tribes is better than modern civilization is outstanding to me. I almost can't comprehend it. These people wouldn't live for very long in such a society. They clearly have an extremely arrogant and misguided understanding of their own position in humanity. In a civilized society, the strong accept the sovereignty of the weak and cooperates with them for whatever use they have, assuming they have a use. In a primitive society, they would just be killed or enslaved. They are not strong, they are weak. They seem to be rather intelligent, and intelligence has never been as rewarded as it is in modern Western civilization. The people they hate are the people who make the world a better place for the whole, while the whole find whatever menial job they can in order to justify the luxury of not having to live in a mud hut. In the past, the strong would survive while the weak would die. Today, the strong carry civilization on their back while the weak complain about how bumpy the ride is. What these philosophers are seemingly, truly fighting against, deep in their very hearts, is the fact that they exist at all; the fact that they are weak while others are strong; the fact that they were born into a game they are incapable of winning, so they do not want to play, and they do not want you to play either. You can see this sometimes when arguing with black nationalists/identitarians. They often come very close, and sometimes say so with a straight face, that they believe their people are not suitable for modern Western civilization and they regret having been born in an environment where they feel as if they can never truly succeed, not due to systematic racism, but a cold-hearted genetic reality that's easily ignored by white and Asian people. In this way, their own arguments are indistinguishable from white nationalists/supremacists, and anyone who accepts a racially genetic disparity finds themselves worried with the fact that identity politics may actually be justified. For people who smugly refute the idea that white people are privileged due to a history of theft and exploitation, suddenly find themselves wondering if they aren't actually instead privileged due to biology. The problem with the left is they will never make that argument, so the right never has to worry about answering it.

[@veroosh]

wait...this is an extremely capitalist-centered and also american-centrist take on postmodernism... Some statements about pro-capital anti-socialist statements are blatantly political rather than philosophical and objective.

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Hi Veroosh: Can you give an example or two and explain what's wrong with the statements? Your general objection isn't helpful yet in advancing the discussion.

[@veroosh]

Stephen Hicks Sure, I listened to the first three chapters, and I thought your inclusion and focus on american philosophers was heavy handed in lieu of this being a continental European philosophy/critique style. Which would be fine, you're an American :). But, what really stopped me was this chapter where you say that all left socialist republics deteriorated into mass murder. The same can be said of Capitalist regimes. Statements such as this, especially from authority figures, are dangerous as they misplace the point that causes genocide. It is not the type of economic system in place, but the interplay of many factors, including external international pressures from competing ideologies that destabilized forming alternatives. This is a subjective and political statement that perpetuates beliefs stemming from the cold war. Its important to know that there was no paranoia of "impending doom" in eastern socialist countries in the 70-90's, in terms of a threat from Capitalism. People were not afraid of the "other;" however, in the US politics there is a strong strain of paranoid xenophobic thinking in terms of alternative views and so forth, which really falls into line with how hegemonic states function. Anyway there were several other points I noticed; however I recall just this one. I was excited to hear your texbook. I am not a socialist by any means, I just can't listen to certain perspectives constantly suggesting everyone else is at fault. I truly believe we're all at fault equally, and no one has it right yet, far from it :)

[@StephenHicksPhilosopher]

Veroosh Tarot Hi again, Veroosh. Thanks for your reply. About your second paragraph above -- check out the statistics on genocides in the 20th century (e.g., here: www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM), and note the difference between socialist regimes and capitalist regimes. About your third paragraph: Note that the chapter is about what was going on inside the minds of the thinkers who fed into or became postmodernists -- that is, a group of Western academics; so your comment about what eastern Europeans or American cold warriors thought is a change of topic.

[@veroosh]

Stephen Hicks I don't believe I said that. I was saying that there is a deeply embedded Paranoid drive against Socialism in Capitalist countries of the west that the East did not reciprocate. I hear that when you say "Milton Freedman proved this.." It weakens your strong observations, because it is a subjective statement that Capitalism has been proven right and communism is proven wrong. It's simply inaccurate, both systems do not promote post-colonial or neo-colonial values of freedom. I think that the genocide statistics reflect poor associations of political structures, and do not reflect external and internal state and rogue players that created environments in which that hostility was seen as the only option. The fact the US and others, were paranoid of an impending socialist revolutions both destabilized and significantly contributed to these genocides. I think the numbers for the USSR reflect WW2, and the Chinese numbers account for a country that follows a different economic pattern all together. They are all murderers and so are we.

[@veroosh]

Were you saying that at the time, western scholars believed that they had proven socialism/communism wrong, or were you saying that by that time they had proved it wrong? I listen to audio stuff when I am doing graphic design, so maybe its a misunderstanding. I was surprised you actually followed up to my comments, lol.

[@syourke3]

I don't think it's helpful to use the term "far-left" unless you first define it. As it is, the term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely useless. As far as the debate over capitalism v. socialism, you are conflating "socialism" with Stalinist state dictatorship which is extremely misleading and unfair to the vast majority of those who consider themselves to be socialists. Your discussion of the philosophical background of postmodernism is quite good but when you venture into politics you fall prey to false dichotomies and vague language.

[@siyaindagulag.]

Yes, an unfortunate dynamic , propitiated by bored , impotent academia. That's to say: Philosophy made ideology made politics. Intellectually abhorrent ,and acid to the soul.

[@TransRoofKorean]

I agree that it's vitally important to define these often _extremely_ inaccurately used terms, but it's also pretty easy. Left vs. Right is a question of how you see hierarchies: the left sees them as unnatural and detrimental, taking resources away from the many and concentrating them among the few, leaving the many behind; the right sees them as natural and useful, concentrating resources among those who can best use them. Clearly, both are accurate, in a sense, but it's about which philosophy you value more, and is more accurately used to describe specific policies. The most quintessential extreme left policy is that of the communist revolutionary who puts the resisters against the wall and shoots them. The most quintessential extreme right policy is that of slavery. A lot of people don't realize but pretty much all of Western culture leans right-wing, since we _tend to_ believe in / support meritocracy, a most standard right-wing value. But there are also attempts to get rid of that, frankly, by commies. |:

[@siyaindagulag.]

@@TransRoofKorean excuse, please for butting in on this conversation . Yes, hierarchies exist . They however , become over time stagnant and corrupt by leaving behind those first -order values which enabled their establishment . The tendency of western civilization , under capitalism to be on the political right is therefore to be expected. Power does not relinquish its gains , a quality of it not conducive to that other post-enlightenment value of the sovereignty of the individual .The left take this value seriously whereas the right , having gained it , can now dispense with it as ok for them but not for others. ( I allude to your statement on slavery here) . Socialism seeks to level the playing field through revolution. Revolution only. Not reformaion. The historically recent attempts at this of course ,were horrendous. So ,an answer or solution if I were to suggest one would be the growth of the individual , yes in human terms and if " meritocracy " Should be valued , why not bade it on that ? Tooth and claw have done enough damage and to me , the " right" will always mean which boot a thug will use to kick me in the head . The left , being which leg I will stand on while I kick him back . I have appreciated the discussion . Cheers.

[@TransRoofKorean]

@@siyaindagulag. I'll have to revisit this when I'm not drunk :S

[@siyaindagulag.]

@@TransRoofKorean uh oh ! In that case , maybe best to let Logos and Mythos do any kickin that needs doin. Be safe.

[@phacker7967]

That's because it's Randian! Watch out. How Is Ayn Rand still a thing.

[@chuck6033]

This is the stupidest audiobook ever set to tape. It is complete hogwash.

[@devilsadvocate7389]

This book turned to shit real quick.