Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks: Full Audiobook

****See timestamps below for easy browsing****
This audiobook edition of Explaining Postmodernism is read by the author.
To listen to a specific chapter 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...
To purchase the book on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Explaining-Pos...
Timestamps:
00:00:00 EXPLAINING POSTMODERNISM
00:00:25 CHAPTER ONE: What Postmodernism Is
00:02:22 The postmodern vanguard: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty
00:09:22 Modern and postmodern
00:12:22 Modernism and the Enlightenment
00:22:50 Postmodernism versus the Enlightenment
00:25:06 Postmodern academic themes
00:29:51 Postmodern cultural themes
00:33:17 Why postmodernism?
CHAPTER TWO: The Counter-Enlightenment Attack on Reason
00:38:12 Enlightenment reason, liberalism, and science
00:40:20 The beginnings of the Counter-Enlightenment
00:47:05 Kant’s skeptical conclusion
00:50:57 Kant’s problematic from empiricism and rationalism
00:57:36 Kant’s essential argument
01:05:27 Identifying Kant’s key assumptions
01:10:55 Why Kant is the turning point
01:17:37 After Kant: reality or reason but not both
01:22:22 Metaphysical solutions to Kant: from Hegel to Nietzsche
01:27:50 Dialectic and saving religion
01:35:55 Hegel’s contribution to postmodernism
01:37:28 Epistemological solutions to Kant: irrationalism from Kierkegaard to Nietzsche
01:48:50 Summary of irrationalist themes
CHAPTER THREE: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason
01:50:09 Heidegger’s synthesis of the Continental tradition
01:55:56 Setting aside reason and logic
01:59:44 Emotions as revelatory
02:05:17 Heidegger and postmodernism
02:09:21 Positivism and Analytic philosophy: from Europe to America
02:15:15 From Positivism to Analysis
02:18:55 Recasting philosophy’s function
02:22:06 Perception, concepts, and logic
02:29:37 From the collapse of Logical Positivism to Kuhn and Rorty
02:31:27 Summary: A vacuum for postmodernism to fill
02:34:35 First thesis: Postmodernism as the end result of Kantian epistemology
CHAPTER FOUR: The Climate of Collectivism
02:40:50 From postmodern epistemology to postmodern politics
02:44:56 The argument of the next three chapters
02:50:21 Responding to socialism’s crisis of theory and evidence
02:55:26 Back to Rousseau
02:57:27 Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment
03:05:45 Rousseau’s collectivism and statism
03:14:58 Rousseau and the French Revolution
03:22:53 Counter-Enlightenment Politics: Right and Left collectivism
03:27:13 Kant on collectivism and war
03:34:45 Herder on multicultural relativism
03:41:15 Fichte on education as socialization
03:55:50 Hegel on worshipping the state
04:04:25 From Hegel to the twentieth century
04:07:16 Right versus Left collectivism in the twentieth century
04:17:12 The Rise of National Socialism: Who are the real socialists?
CHAPTER FIVE: The Crisis of Socialism
04:23:25 Marx and waiting for Godot
04:25:33 Three failed predictions
04:28:51 Socialism needs an aristocracy: Lenin, Mao, and the lesson of the German Social Democrats
04:35:23 Good news for socialism: depression and war
04:38:16 Bad news: liberal capitalism rebounds
04:41:11 Worse news: Khrushchev’s revelations and Hungary
04:49:42 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s ethical standard
04:51:47 From need to equality
04:56:12 From 'Wealth is good' to 'Wealth is bad'
05:03:22 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s epistemology
05:09:30 Marcuse and the Frankfurt School: Marx plus Freud, or oppression plus repression
CHAPTER SIX: Postmodern Strategy
05:20:53 Connecting epistemology to politics
05:22:43 Masks and rhetoric in language
05:30:16 When theory clashes with fact
05:32:15 Kierkegaardian postmodernism
05:38:13 Reversing Thrasymachus
05:40:51 Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy
05:44:50 Machiavellian postmodernism
05:46:18 Machiavellian rhetorical discourses
05:48:15 Deconstruction as an educational strategy
05:54:41 Ressentiment postmodernism
05:57:56 Nietzschean ressentiment
06:02:11 Foucault and Derrida on the end of man
06:09:25 Ressentiment strategy
06:13:50 Post-postmodernism
Other links:
Facebook: / srchicks
Twitter: / srchicks
Website: www.stephenhicks.org/
Instagram: / stephenhicksphilosophy

[@AnotherGradus]

After taking a course on Philosophy, it's refreshing to have a critical analysis of what's being advocated by those "representatives of culture"-- as most books just summarize themes without their implications. Stephen Hicks unpacks the generation-spanning-academic-malaise called Post-Modernism by letting the various works unravel themselves by presenting their contradictions and detriments as they are. I bought this book back in 2005 after it was endorsed by a Literary Criticism professor, -- back when I had written an essay on "Why science wasn't just another narrative" (or something like that). I couldn't quite articulate why I disagreed with cultural relativism, so _Explaining Postmodernism_ clarified the subject immensely.

[@tempestvideos9834]

+Paul Keefer I like Hicks too, but a flaw in this work (probably a conscious flaw) is a narrow philosophical scope when analyzing the seeming failure of postmodernist thought. Broadening the scope to include greater historical analysis would show that capitalism was enhanced by socialist views practical to stabilizing market equilibria - especially after the Great Depression. A still forming antithesis (that is at the moment more influenced by modernist thought) has resulted. Not a pure victory for either side yet, the war continues. As Human affairs become more charged by increased liberty and communication the chaotic "human factor" will further demand practical solutions that could be labeled as socialist. This has already been happening for more than a century leading me to believe it will continue into the near future. Environmentalism is never mentioned; the major questions in how to develop a plan for humanity involve this realm. I would appreciate a discussion of modernist vs. postmodernist thought on the environment and humanity.

[@DaddyGrindstien]

Everything I have learned about the Great depression points to the idea that socialism caused the Great Depression by enacting government policies like price controls, protectionism/corporatism/"corporate welfare", and high taxes that further hobbled the economy and created greater unemployment. Taking what would have been remembered as a nasty market correction (which are a natural consequence of human action and choice) and turning it into what would come to be known as the "The Great Depression" The common misunderstanding is that F.D.R. swooped in an saved the day by righting the wrongs and bringing balance to the force or some nonsense, but that is really the opposite of what happened, he kneecapped the economy. When it comes to the economy the government can only mess things up, I agree with you people will always clamor for the government to "DO SOMETHING!!!" when things go wrong, but we should be relying on ourselves and each other and we should be VERY weary of giving more and more power to the government. In the words of Grover Norquist: "I don't wan't to abolish the government I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in my bathtub." lol I must however concede that environmentalism is a tricky subject. I think that environmentalism as a movement is pretty bat shit and anti-human, but there is currently a debate bubbling in the libertarian/ancap/voluntarist community about environmentalism. The fact that the average consumer is not terribly conscientious and they don't really seem to care if you are polluting the air or the ocean as long as they get a cheaper latte. (or whatever.) So since unfortunately you can't expect today's consumer to punish companies for things like that leaves the question open as to how businesses can be sufficiently motivated through free market forces without government coercion? The best argument I have yet heard for how this can be achieved is though insurance companies. Insurance companies are motivated to keep people healthy so they don't have to pay out so much money, people need clean air water etc. to remain healthy, so insurance companies could then have the incentive to raise insurance premiums on companies who are polluting, making people sick and ultimately harming their bottom line, thereby putting financial pressure on businesses to modernize and or upgrade their operations in order to pollute less and save money on insurance and nobody has to be forced with threats of violence and imprisonment. This argument was put forth by Stefan Molyneux in one of his books on anarchy... I'm 99% sure it was "Practical Anarchy" all of his books are available in whatever format you like, including audio book, all for free. In practical anarchy he attempts to wrestle with the more elusive concepts of how an anarchist society can be organized such as "how will the roads get built?" He doesn't claim to have definitive answers, however it is an excellent primer for getting your own juices flowing on how to solve these complex issues without demanding that the government stick a gun in everyone's faces and and force them to do what you or I or far more likely some guy with more money and influence than both of us wants them to do. Sorry for the essay. Succinctness is not my strong suit.

[@mkrump9403]

DaddyGrindstien It's all about conscientiousness. By checking all this philosophy thoughts of the government I came to the conclusion that any government are the product of a mass culture that were apart in their strong holes. You can control the government only by its food. Its food is his culture. That is such evidence and everywhere that we are missing it... We are living in a cultural bubble and we are part of this culture... You can deny it but it's way more deep than what we can perceive. I believe in the time zone... After the globalism era. They will be the time era. Once we take conscious that are time life is stock into our conscious and if you take a moment to think about that: What if 1 minute could become a complete centuries? That is very mentally bugging. If one 1 minutes can be check as a 365 days. You will be able to watch the universe like the strings theories. The string will be part of after end of the material. Fun part is that we know the string theories only by destroying Atoms/ it's a death/live theory after that could be associate with an after life theory. Because know by destructing atoms and quantum break. We can not spot the theory by. I am just theorizing on it... I believe that will always be some weaker and stronger. also a way that is possible to optimizing each elements and not controlling the would group if you can spot who and why some are causing problem. By global optimization you will find a bad and good solution and sometimes the good solution is to slowing down instead of taking pills or drugs. Which can turn bad from the economic perception. The economic culture and its only reality is cash/times. But our cultures is pushing anyone in every direction without having sustain operational goals/ so losing time by the process of pushing in every direction... This anarchic cash run is pushing lot to pit fall.

[@olserknam]

@@DaddyGrindstien Sure, put all the blame for The Great Depression on those evil socialists. Propaganda did a good job on you, didn't it?

[@DaddyGrindstien]

@@olserknam ​ lol... Not an argument. Let me guess, any information that casts socialism in an unfavorable light is propaganda, but everything that supports your confirmation bias is just cold hard facts... If you want to make a real argument with facts and evidence instead of simply telling me that my head is full of "propaganda" which by the way is nothing more than the dissemination of information (I assume you meant false propaganda) I would be happy to hear it. I enjoy engaging people with different views than my own and I'm not one of these hostile internet people who will call you stupid for the beliefs you hold. So if you want to have a discussion I'm listening. You should know going into this that I am a former socialist, I am not someone who was raised on the right and never took the time to step outside of his box. For the record I don't think socialists are evil (though socialists seem all too often seem to cast capitalists as such) I think socialists hearts are in the right place, the problem is not that they are evil, the problem is that they are idealistic to a fault, nieve and most importantly they are wrong. I really don't see how anyone having understood both sides of the argument could ever continue to be a socialist. I do however view many socialist leaders as evil because I have trouble believing that they don't realize that they are lying and those lies just happen to concentrate more and more power unto themselves while crying "power to the people!" Anyway the ball is in your court, If you want this conversation to go more in depth on how FDR did or did not cause the great depression we can do that, or perhaps you would rather discuss marxist theory and economics in general? I'm open to wherever you want to take this conversation provided we can keep the conversation at least somewhat civil. I understand that these topics invoke a great deal of passion and emotion in people, I am not immune to these feelings, however that should not render us incapable of having a rational discussion without it devolving into a string of incoherent insults and character attacks. Don't forget to @ me so I don't miss your response and I hope I can look forward to a good discussion with you.

[@leonardorodrigues14]

Here are time marks for ease of navigation through the chapters. EXPLAINING POSTMODERNISM 00:00:00 CHAPTER ONE: What Postmodernism Is 00:00:25 The postmodern vanguard: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty 00:02:22 Modern and postmodern 00:09:22 Modernism and the Enlightenment 00:12:22 Postmodernism versus the Enlightenment 00:22:50 Postmodern academic themes 00:25:06 Postmodern cultural themes 00:29:51 Why postmodernism? 00:33:17 CHAPTER TWO: The Counter-Enlightenment Attack on Reason Enlightenment reason, liberalism, and science 00:38:12 The beginnings of the Counter-Enlightenment 00:40:20 Kant’s skeptical conclusion 00:47:05 Kant’s problematic from empiricism and rationalism 00:50:57 Kant’s essential argument 00:57:36 Identifying Kant’s key assumptions 01:05:27 Why Kant is the turning point 01:10:55 After Kant: reality or reason but not both 01:17:37 Metaphysical solutions to Kant: from Hegel to Nietzsche 01:22:22 Dialectic and saving religion 01:27:50 Hegel’s contribution to postmodernism 01:35:55 Epistemological solutions to Kant: irrationalism from Kierkegaard to Nietzsche 01:37:28 Summary of irrationalist themes 01:48:50 CHAPTER THREE: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason Heidegger’s synthesis of the Continental tradition 01:50:09 Setting aside reason and logic 01:55:56 Emotions as revelatory 01:59:44 Heidegger and postmodernism 02:05:17 Positivism and Analytic philosophy: from Europe to America 02:09:21 From Positivism to Analysis 02:15:15 Recasting philosophy’s function 02:18:55 Perception, concepts, and logic 02:22:06 From the collapse of Logical Positivism to Kuhn and Rorty 02:29:37 Summary: A vacuum for postmodernism to fill 02:31:27 First thesis: Postmodernism as the end result of Kantian epistemology 02:34:35 CHAPTER FOUR: The Climate of Collectivism 02:40:42 From postmodern epistemology to postmodern politics 02:40:50 The argument of the next three chapters 02:44:56 Responding to socialism’s crisis of theory and evidence 02:50:21 Back to Rousseau 02:55:26 Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment 02:57:27 Rousseau’s collectivism and statism 03:05:45 Rousseau and the French Revolution 03:14:58 Counter-Enlightenment Politics: Right and Left collectivism 03:22:53 Kant on collectivism and war 03:27:13 Herder on multicultural relativism 03:34:45 Fichte on education as socialization 03:41:15 Hegel on worshipping the state 03:55:50 From Hegel to the twentieth century 04:04:25 Right versus Left collectivism in the twentieth century 04:07:16 The Rise of National Socialism: Who are the real socialists? 04:17:12 CHAPTER FIVE: The Crisis of Socialism Marx and waiting for Godot 04:23:25 Three failed predictions 04:25:33 Socialism needs an aristocracy: Lenin, Mao, and the lesson of the German Social Democrats 04:28:51 Good news for socialism: depression and war 04:35:23 Bad news: liberal capitalism rebounds 04:38:16 Worse news: Khrushchev’s revelations and Hungary 04:41:11 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s ethical standard 04:49:42 From need to equality 04:51:47 From 'Wealth is good' to 'Wealth is bad' 04:56:12 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s epistemology 05:03:22 Marcuse and the Frankfurt School: Marx plus Freud, or oppression plus repression 05:09:30 The rise and fall of Left terrorism From the collapse of the New Left to postmodernism CHAPTER SIX: Postmodern Strategy 05:20:45 Connecting epistemology to politics Masks and rhetoric in language 05:22:43 When theory clashes with fact 05:30:16 Kierkegaardian postmodernism 05:32:15 Reversing Thrasymachus 05:38:13 Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy 05:40:51 Machiavellian postmodernism 05:44:50 Machiavellian rhetorical discourses 05:46:18 Deconstruction as an educational strategy 05:48:15 Ressentiment postmodernism 05:54:41 Nietzschean ressentiment 05:57:56 Foucault and Derrida on the end of man 06:02:11 Ressentiment strategy 06:09:25 Post-postmodernism 06:13:50

[@gregridd]

this needs more upvotes :)

[@LiquidSwan]

God bless you

[@poppyrider5541]

Bump

[@diegostyles192]

Thank you so much

[@Darko.666]

Thank you

[@edmarques6587]

I just finished listening to this. Really, an amazing six hour adventure.

[@siyaindagulag.]

Only an hour and a half in , and Hegel's to-ing and fro-ing ( if he is valid in labelling Kant as wishy-washy ,then to-ing and fro-ing seems equally valid in terms ) ,is making my head spin . Saved , subscribed and am eager to explore . Watch out , universe with a beginning but no apparent end , a brain with more neuronal connections than you have stars, is watching you ..

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

Fast forward 4 yrs and witness these ideas being put into practice on various fronts thus illustrating the danger of bad ideas. Read James Lindsay's "Cynical Theories"(written w a co-author whose name I can't remember offhand), Sowell's "Intellectuals and Society," and Tim Gordon's "Rules for Retrogrades." Also, give a listen and read to James Lindey's "New Discourses" on KZbin.

[@siyaindagulag.]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 Sowell...tick New discourses ...tick Where truth( honesty) is feared, lay at the foot of an immense staicase. Im only part way up and those scoffing in their bravado at fear of heights below with barbed grappling hooks, already appear ant-like. I hear their proud indignance, though and their collective disdain. A little late for "approval" ,or the need of it.

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

@@siyaindagulag. , ummm? Truth and honesty is feared? Sounds more like an ad hominem than an actual meaningful argument against their positions. See ya in the gulag? Yep. That's where the left usually send free thinkers and all those who pose a threat to the new regime once they are secure in their power. Historically, that is where most of the Revolutionaries themselves are sent because they are a threat to the newly installed Totalitarian Regimes. They don't mention that in works by Mercuse or the Post modernists bc they either think they will be the ones who wield The State correctly or they don't bother learning the history of the past experiments w secular leftist ideologies. Too bad they don't see the actual truth of the success of past implementation of classic Liberal ideals and other forms of Republican Government and the free markets despite their flaws. Oh, well. We're doomed any way.

[@siyaindagulag.]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 Then it seems we've both imagined inferences . Danger of bad ideas ? No , the "danger" lay only in the actions of those who would collectively adopt and enforce said ideas. Ask any individual socially forced to swallow the more toxic forms of "meaning" whether religious, political , cultural, etc. etc . You name the sphere of interaction - and there your "danger " will be found.....walking hand in hand with fear Of onesself .

[@11colobos]

June 2020 - very pertinent time to re-listen to this, given the ideology is manifesting now with chaos in the west

[@user-ju6zx3rm8d]

it's been going on since The Frankfurt School.....

[@tylerstanley578]

Same

[@garrettp8225]

True. Post-modern conservatism is post-modern because it disdains belief in objective truth and mores, whether offered by science or social science, and locates meaning in a reactionary identity and its values. This is expressed in post-modern conservatism’s approach to politics. Since there is no objective truth to be found, there are no firm criteria for mediating between or evaluating the truth of different value systems and policies. Facts can be countered by appeal to alternative facts. Critics can be dismissed as fake news. What matters for post-modern conservatives is remaining faithful to a conservative identity.

[@garrettp8225]

“Truth isn’t truth” ~ Rudy Giuliani

[@Gili0]

@@garrettp8225 Ah yes, some conservatives are portraying radical skepticism and so are some of our brothers and sisters on the left. The radical outliers are even more removed from reality, using language only instrumentally, to attack and destroy conversation in pursuit of their agenda.

[@princeofruins3287]

I bought the book before realizing this existed. I regret nothing,this was illuminating.

[@christianacker3543]

For intense books like this I often purchase a hard copy to take notes and listen to an audio book simultaneously.

[@cinderella200]

It took me weeks to finally get through this, and I need to listen at least once more if I’m to understand it well enough to explain it to someone else. That’s not to say Hick’s has done an inadequate job; on the contrary, he has dispensed a great deal of information, and very clearly, in these six hours. I’m grateful to him for making it available.

[@kavorka8855]

Totally agree with you!

[@terrymcanalen3031]

Applause , applause , applause , praise , praise , praise , Professor Hicks had delivered a brilliant , accurate , and penetrating tour de force and lucid exigesis , critically demolishing postmodernist philosophy and finishes his masterwork by bringing the listener or reader back to fact that the modernist enlightenment is not finished and the fact that there is still work to be done to further the interests of reason and rational philosophy , ten out of ten , professor Hicks , this is a remarkable lecture furthering the interests of Libertarians and Capitalist philosophy everywhere and a pillar of the Liberty and Freedom of the Human Individual in today's world and morass of left wing socialist politics and agitators . Thank you so much for making this lecture available to KZbin viewers .

[@ellenscott4294]

Ahh yes, agree!!!

[@coogee126]

i just finished reading this book with the audio...its now 1am in the morning....i absolutely love it. thank you!

[@Marmocet]

1 AM in the morning - the best kind of 1 AM.

[@tephra-ww6ok]

Jammy joe LOL

[@retiredshitposter1062]

Bump. Jammy joe come back and read your comment. It's been a while, hopefully you're better now!

[@williamcutler1557]

Pretty girl

[@victorian-dad]

Thank you Mr Hicks for explaining the madness of the left so eloquently. This is one of the most enlightening books I have ever been exposed to. A masterpiece.

[@pedrotenoriomendes]

The best thing I've heard in KZbin for a long time !

[@KD-rs6xx]

listen to Debt by Graeber, also free on youtube

[@primitiveonpurpose]

Ah, no wonder the students I teach are not interested in the past. It's not THEIR past. Thank you Stephen R. C. Hicks. Surely we sit at the foot of a master here.

[@James-ll3jb]

Wrong. He misinterprets Kant and Nietzsche. He's an 'objectivist' Ayn Rander--she was a crackpot.

[@johnbrown4568]

A wonderful gift to all! Thank you Dr. Hicks.

[@d.b.cooper2063]

There is companion piece on KZbin that goes great with this book called A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism" by Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy. I highly recommend people watch that.

[@cas343]

Hicks made a response called "Defending Explaining Post-Modernism".

[@d.b.cooper2063]

@@cas343 anybody who couldn't even get the basic quotes rights even after proofreading their own work is not worth listening to.

[@ghislaindery6050]

@@d.b.cooper2063Hi, there nothing to keep from Hicks book? I ask because I am not a scholar. I'm simply interested in the history of ideas. I have no training. I listened to some of Hicks' criticism. But I enjoy the first chapters of his book. It is a good introduction, in my opinion, to the ideas of our time. Ty

[@theyliveglasses4667]

Listen to this while tidying your room, buckos.

[@theyliveglasses4667]

Glad you agree, Will.

[@loremipsum7471]

I listened while playing Windows 10 Minesweeper

[@Patrick-kg8vu]

That was my thought exactly. Thank you for reinforcing the idea.

[@tylerstanley578]

Did you just read Jordan Peterson's 10 rules?

[@johanlofgren2262]

In a true Jordan Peterson manner! Imo, one would be able to tidying the entire home back and forth while listening to this gem-filled down-the-rabbit hole journey into post-modernism.

[@clickityclackity75]

After listening to this incredible book, several times, I’m in awe of our ability for thought and understanding. This leaves me somewhat shocked and elated at the same time. Maybe a little frightened as well. It begs the question, “why are we taught to live as we do in the US. when the majority of us aren’t nearly close to our full potential? Also, studying philosophy the past few years, lots of things really make much more sense now, from a global perspective. Turns out, there are better ways to spend one’s time. Thanks for posting this!

[@KibyNykraft]

The problem with both the leftwing form of postmodernism and the more libertarian-neocon Right like Hicks is the stubborn belief in the potential of the majority as opposed to the potential of *mankind* (the top individuals at IQ and at morals). This is why Hicks agree with the postmodernists in giving voting rights to rocks and seagulls, in the belief that all entities and all cultures are the same "by default"; if we apparently just have some american dream-positive thinking, then all these entities will automatically become happy by "doing what thou willst" (theosophy...). But this is just superstition. A rational thinker understands that there are no aspects of nature clearer to the analytical mind then the differences between the entities of reality. The dictatorships of history did not form due to intellectual powers, it was the other way around : Dictatorships and /or stagnative economies and decaying cultures always without exceptions occur in areas where religions and/or the "people" got more and more influence over decision-making.

[@truthseeker3397]

What an underrated treasure.

[@peterrulon-miller814]

Great interpretation of postmodernist misreading of Heidegger. Guaranteed: anyone who is experienced the dread Heidegger is speaking of would not entertain the infantile toys of postmodernism. For the postmodernist, dread too is merely another plaything. Academic-hierarchical-recalcitrance and intellectual materialism par excellence.

[@everythingintheuniverse8962]

Materialism is good

[@xxcrysad3000xx]

Its sad that you can read this aloud faster than I can read it privately to myself (and I have, it's terrific! Nicely bound too)... I hate being a slow reader.

[@95TurboSol]

Here after the Jordan Peterson recommendation :)

[@IdesofMarc]

Ditto

[@Siacourage]

Jordan Peterson brought me here too.

[@PhantomCooper]

Ahh now I know why he is wrong about Postmodernism in every lecture, this is probably his only source.

[@lastmanstanding5423]

same here... :)

[@Infiniteredshift]

Jordan Peterson 🍆

[@thefredkalis]

Thank you. You have a great voice, I'm french, you are easy to understand 😀

[@tempestvideos9834]

Comprehensive and fairly done overview of modernism and post modernism from a historical perspective. Philosophy may be best taught through social and political history, along with literary analysis and criticism.

[@astraldreamhead193]

Dang though, can you imagine the complexity of such a class? In a more profound way you are correct, if the STEM curriculum is the bulk of technical theory that should be learned by a student, all the other parts of education would become a giant class that is as you suggested, history, sociology, and philosophy, with literary analysis combined. The only challenge I see is in actualizing a curriculum for such a huge body of ideas, it would be daunting to teach effectively and even more difficult to teach correctly. Your intuition may be correct .

[@tempestvideos9834]

@@astraldreamhead193 Curriculum is the biggest problem of formal education and teaching. People think learning demands strict practical structure, but evolution deemed it differently making play (especially physical play) the most conducive learning activity known. There is productive value in chaos and adaptation to it during play for a developing being. Also, a teacher who understands their content as well as it's philosophical and historical context is in a better position to teach or profess. What is a PhD - a doctorate of Philosophy! We should place higher standards on teaching while giving individual teachers more freedom to develop their own curriculum, rather than allowing apologist opinion to turn teachers into weavers, and teaching and education into a soulless social construction - which is realistically what public schools in America have become. Technocracy at it's finest here...

[@astraldreamhead193]

@@tempestvideos9834 I agree, education is critical and unfortunately needs to advance with the pace of our society, hopefully more can be done to educate people effectively, revamping curriculum is definitely one of those things that could be really instrumental

[@over-educated-sp]

Just got out of surgery from an appendectomy, guess this is a wonderful time to do dive into this!

[@deroconnor4621]

I am reminded of the comment "Is not the reason that you go wrong that you know neither God nor Man" After studying the history of German thought I was reminded of an old story; A man goes to a Demon and asked for abilities to enable him to take revenge on his enemies. He then asked the price and was told "Something very small, something that you are not aware that you have, but you will scream it's name when it is gone" German Thought seemed to be to be that scream as they struggled over the generations to compensate intellectually for the loss of the concept of the Soul, as that part of Man that exists eternally in God.

[@Truffle_Pup]

This tripe is still getting taught, and is still revered. These years really are the last few chapters of us all.

[@clarkbowler157]

Why so much hate?

[@user-vn9yf4lr5f]

Cope, commie.

[@user-vn9yf4lr5f]

@@clarkbowler157 Truffle pup is probably a sadistic leftist nonce.

[@MrGoatflakes]

21:35 you forgot to mention that plumbers have saved nearly ten times as many people as doctors and medicine.

[@whataweirdnameful]

Can you explain plz

[@MrGoatflakes]

@@whataweirdnameful improvements to sanitation, mostly brought about by plumbers, have saved ten times as many people from dying than the entirety of medical practice and medicine.

[@mkrump9403]

I will listen it the whole thing and after... I will buy this book :D

[@mkrump9403]

6:09:50 ... deconstruction 2004... 12 years later the American election. Both politicians are doing this strategy and both are rights on their opponents... Bill's family (the nice predator) Vs the Trump (the street fight predator). I really enjoy the evolution part from early french thinkers to the post ww2 era. and checking some links points of Jordan B Peterson of the weakening the majority by ambushing their majority morality as something that needs a rebuild. When the problems are in facts just new challenges within a majority that are ultra comfortable with their life and by the way are defending their comfort by having only them self to think about and the same majority are facing minorities(reality). Without knowing it these minorities are used as political deterrence weapon of mass mental bugging each individual's will to remain neutral on every situation. The political class are looking to giving power to minorities that are pretty much their next target to be shifted as correct and neutral to all situation. The problem here is there are no problem. In fact everyone is winning until someone is trying to shut up someone else individual thoughts. We will never be something else then modernism, except globalism. Globalism by our judgment of checking both side of any conflicts. Another nice question what can be worst than a deconstructionism method buggy man? An irresponsible individual... pretty much because his first victim is himself. That is very baby thoughts but this always as to come back at its basic. The post modernism is in fact a way to b*tch*ng on current modern systems because they will always be a minorities who dislike a point. ((just to make is point seem better)) That is pretty baby thoughts. But must of them are earning public achievements such as university grades to impose their will on others. Mental challenges for me, seems to be like physical intellectual one. You must be tutored first then going your own path and shifting your next goal to earn more abilities or specific abilities in area that you feel good in. My generation has this problem of feeling good everywhere and missing some challenges by having no one who can push them a bit for realizing him self goal and release potential. Both parents are working and no one is building his future himself. Parents are giving their children because they dont know what to do with one child that must be protected over. We all live in this bubble of good neutrality. The stronger from modernism are shifting to globalism... Where the forces are used into nonfunctional region/anti globalism region. For now I prefer having this free point of view.

[@gregridd]

wow, incredible thanks for uploading.

[@davidap257]

Thanks for the book,thanks for the audiobook! Extremely important work.

[@cecilevans9247]

My head about exploded when he proclaimed Kant to be the face of the anti-enlightenment movement.

[@liquidblueeyesdragon1204]

Cecil Evans same

[@anthonybrett]

“I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith.” Kant Not sure why your heads exploding, probably because your agenda is now shot.

[@odb1612]

@@anthonybrett Kant being an enlightenment philosopher is an agenda now? god, if you think that you understand Kant by citing this single quote, you must be a confused individual. kant was not anti-reason, kant was not anti-enlightenment. saying otherwise is such an uninformed claim, that needs way more justification than one single quote.

[@odb1612]

@@anthonybrett i also got a vision. I saw some illiterate guy named Brett, who cited a out of context quote by kant, while his brain was too dumb to realize that this quote actually contradicts the point he's trying to make, since he has no idea what Kants philosophy is about. when one pointed this out, he answered with a very confused form of ad hominem attacks.

[@LiquidSwan]

DEAD BOY43 can you point out exactly why the quote is taken out of context and how that proscribes the point made in the quote? What is the context according to you?

[@nobodysfool2232]

Thanks for this! So satisfying

[@crhoads4278]

I was raised by Deists who glorified the Age of Reason and I didn't understand why this world seemed so "foreign" to me until I listened to this. I probably eschewed anything describing or illuminating the Post Modern subject because it didn't interest me, but this was very enlightening....:)

[@cornerbandit]

This explains why I've been made to defend myself the past 15 years. My crime of being white in my own country USA. Being a descendant of settlers.

[@compagniaelvira]

cornerbandit Could you please elaborate ?

[@cornerbandit]

Sure Rolando how this.@@compagniaelvira i've been accused of having white privilege even though my people worked in the Appalachian coal region and dirt poor, I am part of the patriarchy that oppresses women. I don't celebrate sexual orientation constructs. Just because my skin is white. I've lost primo employment opportunities, even though qualified, to diversity hires who were dumb as a rock. I can go on & on...

[@compagniaelvira]

I get that, and it makes me said that today’s left strives for silly identity politics,instead of standing by workers, regardless of the group they belong to.

[@compagniaelvira]

And thank you for sharing your point of view with me

[@cornerbandit]

@@compagniaelvira Yes silly indeed! thank you too for an expression of opinion without name calling and hostility.

[@plekkchand]

I've always thought the square root of negative one was a phallus. Nothing could be more obvious, and I'm glad someone else out there came to the same conclusion.

[@farcenter]

So clear. Absolutely excellent.

[@byronbrandstepwise]

Thanks for reading this out.

[@stevendurham9996]

Thank You, Professor Hicks. Nietzsche would have smoked these lightweights.

[@truelightseeker]

Didn't he already 100 years in advance? Atleast according to Jordan Peterson "On the Tarantulas" by Nietzsche (I think from 'Thus spoke Zarathustra') is about SJWs and in a sense about Post Modernists, especially those who want to use it for changing the social order.

[@stephengroton1434]

It used to be said, whether true or false, that one should not give alcohol to Native Americans as it would induce temporary insanity. Much the same could be said for Germans and philosophy. I propose that if we see a German begin to become quiet, introverted and contemplative, for God's sake intervene with a stein of beer, some music or a carburetor to repair! Actually it is true of all mankind. Rolling around in the significances of the mind, trying to piece something together, is seldom productive. Much better to build a machine or make a watch or create some art. In other words, something REAL... ha ha.

[@sandorfintor]

amazing comment! mad me giggle with unexpected insight!

[@oldsachem]

Speaking of Kant, if the object has the power to make the representation cognitive, then the external object has a godlike power to make the subject aware or conscious. Kant's alternative focus on the mind as a subjective generator of cognition drills down to a fundamental question that vexes philosophy and science today that no one knows exactly and/or qualitatively what human consciousness is.

[@zzzzziiiiiiiizzzzz3515]

Fascinating, methodical, systematic and accessible. 3 hours into this book, and it amounts to getting a masters level survey course for free

[@alamdarhussain9469]

really a revieling book on the subject

[@DrEnginerd1]

I can't wait for the sequel.

[@triplea657aaa]

I think a truly intelligent postmodernist would say that postmodernism should be a method to deepen and and sophisticate modernism, not to replace it.

[@primitiveonpurpose]

Bingo!

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Maybe. That’s not how the idiots who latched on to its relativism have chosen to run with it. They turned it into a group identity conflict theory and they’re trying to seize the reins.

[@PrimoPete]

Unfortunately, what I call neo-Post-modernists, have replaced its logical precepts with Neo-Marxism as its 1st principle. Ergo, the sh!t you see today...

[@AlexDeLarge77]

The purpose is not determined by intelligence but by intent. Those who propagate applied PMT don’t seek to replace modernism, but to destroy what underpins it, the western world. It’s a revolution. If you, or anyone else doesn’t understand this then you seriously need to wake up. Unless you want to see western civilisation collapse. And the way things are going this outcome is highly probable.

[@kavorka8855]

What does that even mean?!

[@MAX-tw3qz]

I am a third of the way through this book on Kindle, it's fascinating observing that which I began seeking answers to many moons ago are nearing fruit in this generation as facts, truth and whateverisms, the education of nothingness as normality posing and veiled as reality. Ye gods ! Strange how those algorithms are so connected, I buy the book off Amazon, they suggest it to me on KZbin. Good stuff though, thanks.

[@annaquay4183]

I was a sophomore when this came out. Listening again, I wanna get sick.

[@DarklordofBarovia]

Time to clean my room, fellow buckos!

[@gravytopic]

Thomas van Iersel cringe

[@Lord_Volkner]

I can't seem to manage cleaning my room, but I don't see that as much of a problem as I'm not out trying to change any world but my own.

[@Xanadu2025]

The fatal flaw of the irrationalists is that they are using reason to argue that reason is insufficient to know reality.

[@hjgxkhjkbl3131]

Postmodernism is obviously the madness of our time

[@sandorfintor]

thank you.

[@metrakos]

A must read

[@METALRAT1000]

Postmodernism is a negation of a negation. For, whereas Modernism is a negation of traditional Christianity, Postmodernism is, in its turn, a negation of Modernism.

[@RatatRatR]

That's not, in and of itself, more than an interesting turn of phrase. It certainly isn't damning. The two what-you've-called-negations happened in such disparate times, places and circumstances that they could as easily be discussed as antitheses (Hegel), transclusions (Wilber), or just plain different perspectives.

[@Lord_Volkner]

If you think that Modernism is a negation of Christianity, you either don't understand what Modernism is or you don't understand what Christianity is ... or both.

[@Lord_Volkner]

@Meister Incognito Meister Incognito says to himself, "I can't come up with an actual argument, so I'll just insult them. That should prove my point."

[@haris147break]

@@Lord_Volkner the metaphysical and physical.

[@groundedinfirstprinciples383]

Worth the effort to get through this long rough ride. The first two hours are a massive history of philosophy that is beneficial to understand the meat in the middle with a modern history of philosophy and the relationship between the history of the world more or less since the birth of the United States and the US and French revolutions. Even after reading it I'm tempted to say skip to the back half of the book however if you want to truly analyze it for yourself based on the history of human. And he male philosophy you do yourself to skip through what mini might feel are the boring first half. If you're trying to decide if you have what it takes to read through this entire 6 Hour audiobook, ask yourself now if you find my review very interesting or very boring. Very interesting people definitely should proceed if you feel like this review is painful to read then you're going to have a hard time and Should Skip to the second half.

[@whoever79]

Thank you

[@xiaodongwang7753]

Students at Rockford University, like many of us KZbinrs, are grateful to Professor Stephen Hicks for giving such a sweeping review and analysis of European (even worldwide) intellectual history of the past two century, from Kant to Marcuse. I understand that Professor Hicks is passionate about politics, though I wish he had remained neutral. Disregarding basic truth is not limited to the left, for example, as a glancing of Fox News would reveal. Taking side on the part of the author weakens an otherwise powerful argument of the book.

[@christopherlees1134]

Orange Man Bad!

[@basedcentrist3056]

I guess the difference is that the left wing post modernists have created an entire philosophy out of this, while,the right wingers are just ignorant. Both are dangerous but if you’re writing about post modernism, it’s almost exclusively a left wing phenomenon

[@ntodd4110]

But that was the whole point of the book: to proselytize on behalf of an extremist political ideology under the guise of high-minded intellectualism. He's rather like Charles Murray in that regard, except Murray hides his animosity toward his academic rivals much more effectively than Hicks.

[@PrimoPete]

It is not not-neutral to point out that the neo-post-modern belief system derives its guiding principle from the more leftist streams of thought, regardless of one's whataboutist invocations of "What about Fox News?".

[@PrimoPete]

@@ntodd4110 Aahh, typical accusation of Hicks. Like the professor said, 'ad hominems replace reasoning'.

[@ezrazeleke1909]

Simply an eye operer. Thanks

[@matthewgaulke8094]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has felt something is really wacked about the times we live in. It's felt like this illusive force hell bent on chaos and reeks of bitter resentment. Listening to this only 30 minutes in and things make a lot more sense as to where this shit is coming from. It's hard to listen to this because it brings up all these very uncomfortable feelings I've had lately as I'm testing the temperature of the cultural waters. It puts a name to where a lot of my anxiety is coming from.

[@kevinsbott]

This book is fantastically thought provoking!

[@odb1612]

most of all it's provoking how wrong it is on any topic

[@LiquidSwan]

DEAD BOY43 can you give an example where he is wrong? Give me your most powerful example

[@odb1612]

@@LiquidSwan one that maybe doesn't require a too deep understanding of the topic: he claims Kant is a counter-enlightenment philosopher. this is completely false, now matter how you look at it. his argument is based on this statement of kant: "I here therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith" (page 29.) this quote however is taken so hard out of context that I can only conclude, hicks is deliberately spreading misinformation here. when kant said this he didn't state that there is no power to reason or knowledge, but that it finds its limits when it comes to transcendental topics. there, and there alone, you can't "know" anything, since we can't observe things like god or the free will. kant argues that if pure reason is trying to come to conclusions about such things, he will necessary get fallacious paralogisms as a result. (Kants transcendental paralogisms) So Kant argues that you can't apply reason to far-from-reality-gibberish, which is in no way an argument against reason, when it comes to the observable world. but since kant was believing in god, he saw faith as the only way to face transcendental topics.

[@LiquidSwan]

DEAD BOY43 interesting. I completely understand what you’re saying here. I did not find that Hicks was meaning to state that Kant was against reason on the whole though but that it had limitations (I don’t think he [Hicks] went into which or what those would be specifically). I didn’t get the impression that Kant was counter-enlightenment but rather was sort of borderline, on the cusp of both the enlightenment and counter-enlightenment, sort of how Hegel becomes the cusp of left and right collectivism. Thoughts?

[@austenbreninger7180]

Consider "Joe Six-Pack." He quoted George Carlin here... Around 5:16:00

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Equality of outcome...the impossible (and thus extremely useful) ethical standard.

[@everythingintheuniverse8962]

I'm a Marxist equality of outcome is dumb

[@evanhughes6017]

Thank you for uploading this. What wonderful scholarship

[@danieleklund1963]

Bravo!

[@erickborling1302]

Looking forward to the scholarship on Post-Postmoderninsm.

[@AllKnowingTheAtheist]

ahahahahahaha fucking kill me, so science discriminates other types of velocity by saying speed of light is the fastest???? Speed of light, check your priviledge!!! These people have lost it

[@tempestvideos9834]

You look at it from a rational point of view. Remember, the postmodern mindset doesn't care about reason or rationality. Naturally, they see it subjectively in the way they like because they don't feel limited by reason.

[@ntodd4110]

Maybe you just misunderstood what "these people" actually believe, or carelessly adopted some Internet yutz's representation about them without checking into whether it's a fair appraisal. Happens all the time.

[@riddler576]

CHAPTER ONE: What Postmodernism Is 00:02:22 The postmodern vanguard: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty 00:09:22 Modern and postmodern 00:12:22 Modernism and the Enlightenment 00:22:50 Postmodernism versus the Enlightenment 00:25:06 Postmodern academic themes 00:29:51 Postmodern cultural themes 00:33:17 Why postmodernism? CHAPTER TWO: The Counter-Enlightenment Attack on Reason 00:38:12 Enlightenment reason, liberalism, and science 00:40:20 The beginnings of the Counter-Enlightenment 00:47:05 Kant’s skeptical conclusion 00:50:57 Kant’s problematic from empiricism and rationalism 00:57:36 Kant’s essential argument 01:05:27 Identifying Kant’s key assumptions 01:10:55 Why Kant is the turning point 01:17:37 After Kant: reality or reason but not both 01:22:22 Metaphysical solutions to Kant: from Hegel to Nietzsche 01:27:50 Dialectic and saving religion 01:35:55 Hegel’s contribution to postmodernism 01:37:28 Epistemological solutions to Kant: irrationalism from Kierkegaard to Nietzsche 01:48:50 Summary of irrationalist themes CHAPTER THREE: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason 01:50:09 Heidegger’s synthesis of the Continental tradition 01:55:56 Setting aside reason and logic 01:59:44 Emotions as revelatory 02:05:17 Heidegger and postmodernism 02:09:21 Positivism and Analytic philosophy: from Europe to America 02:15:15 From Positivism to Analysis 02:18:55 Recasting philosophy’s function 02:22:06 Perception, concepts, and logic 02:29:37 From the collapse of Logical Positivism to Kuhn and Rorty 02:31:27 Summary: A vacuum for postmodernism to fill 02:34:35 First thesis: Postmodernism as the end result of Kantian epistemology CHAPTER FOUR: The Climate of Collectivism 02:40:50 From postmodern epistemology to postmodern politics 02:44:56 The argument of the next three chapters 02:50:21 Responding to socialism’s crisis of theory and evidence 02:55:26 Back to Rousseau 02:57:27 Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment 03:05:45 Rousseau’s collectivism and statism 03:14:58 Rousseau and the French Revolution 03:22:53 Counter-Enlightenment Politics: Right and Left collectivism 03:27:13 Kant on collectivism and war 03:34:45 Herder on multicultural relativism 03:41:15 Fichte on education as socialization 03:55:50 Hegel on worshipping the state 04:04:25 From Hegel to the twentieth century 04:07:16 Right versus Left collectivism in the twentieth century 04:17:12 The Rise of National Socialism: Who are the real socialists? CHAPTER FIVE: The Crisis of Socialism 04:23:25 Marx and waiting for Godot 04:25:33 Three failed predictions 04:28:51 Socialism needs an aristocracy: Lenin, Mao, and the lesson of the German Social Democrats 04:35:23 Good news for socialism: depression and war 04:38:16 Bad news: liberal capitalism rebounds 04:41:11 Worse news: Khrushchev’s revelations and Hungary 04:49:42 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s ethical standard 04:51:47 From need to equality 04:56:12 From ‘Wealth is good’ to ‘Wealth is bad’ 05:03:22 Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s epistemology 05:09:30 Marcuse and the Frankfurt School: Marx plus Freud, or oppression plus repression CHAPTER SIX: Postmodern Strategy 05:20:53 Connecting epistemology to politics 05:22:43 Masks and rhetoric in language 05:30:16 When theory clashes with fact 05:32:15 Kierkegaardian postmodernism 05:38:13 Reversing Thrasymachus 05:40:51 Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy 05:44:50 Machiavellian postmodernism 05:46:18 Machiavellian rhetorical discourses 05:48:15 Deconstruction as an educational strategy 05:54:41 Ressentiment postmodernism 05:57:56 Nietzschean ressentiment 06:02:11 Foucault and Derrida on the end of man 06:09:25 Ressentiment strategy 06:13:50 Post-postmodernism

[@oldsachem]

Professor Hicks, in explicating Heidegger and dasein, there is some connection to the human-psychiatric phenomenon of schizophrenia. Not only does schizophrenic psychosis implicate lack of reason, another telling and profound symptoms is anhedonia, or lack of affect, or absence of emotional feeling in the subject.

[@sandorfintor]

Brilliantly insightful comment, and I mean it honestly.

[@AI-Hallucination]

Did this in one day brilliant l

[@ken-vo]

46:40 PostModernism won over the grounds in the Humanities/Social Sciences based on rhetorical sophistry rather than in reasom

[@oldsachem]

The dasein of Heidegger seems to correlate with the Heisenberg principle of quantum physics as well as the phenomenon of quantum subatomic entanglemnts.

[@capitalj1987]

Tim cast sent me time to listen

[@loremipsum7471]

1:38:15 "The irrationalists divided over whether religion is true. The irrationalists divided over whether religion is true."

[@mrroyixo]

So much truth and common sense

[@matweb8195]

Legendary.

[@SIMPLIFYDrawingandPainting]

I'm not very smart or anything, but it seems to me that what science has shown us about the nature of reality would support what Kant was saying?

[@SIMPLIFYDrawingandPainting]

@Miika Kaltiainen I don't know about any of that. I was thinking more of how since Einstein's theory of relativity and Quantum physics and all that, we still don't really know what the true nature of reality is. Also, according to neuroscience we appear to be mainly governed by chemistry rather than reason. So it turns out Kant and other transcendental idealists like Schopehauer have won that argument. Not that I'm knocking reason or anything, obviously its our only hope for not acting like a complete f-ing idiots the whole time.

[@almcdonald8676]

I may be betraying my own Aristotelian leanings here but it seems to me that where kant made a genuine breakthrough in thought in advancing a limited subjectivity, Hegels wholesale disregard of any Aristotelian restraint in theorising a universe of subjectivity seems like a rather desperate ploy that unhitched philosophy from concrete progress and sent it spinning off into the realm of fantasy

[@ntodd4110]

I don't fully agree with everything you say, but it seems like you do know a bit about the subject. You're probably too well-informed to be in HIck's target audience.

[@annbrucepineda8093]

What about Chomsky in language?

[@pranvendra29]

Chapter 3 - 1:50:00 the 20th century collapse of reason.

[@enacausmembrane]

2:24:46 Bookmark

[@MrGoatflakes]

21:00 should be "cotton (and linen and woolen) _cloth_" _*_not_*_ _"clothes"._ Off the shelf clothing wasn't common until at least the late 19th to early 20th century. The first obvious mass production of ready to wear or off the shelf clothing was American uniforms for the War of 1812. Sears, etc were selling dresses of the rack mail order by around the Gold Rush c. 1869, but until the late 19th to early 20th most clothes were still either made at home or by a tailor or seamstress in their small shop. At first the biggest impact of industrialization on clothing was cheap machine made cloth (and sewing thread and needles) and home sewing machines.

[@oldsachem]

According to Derrida, aporia is the point in analysis or interpretation where meaning "deconstructs," i.e., breaks down, to have no meaning.

[@Birthdaycakesmom]

The revelation that modernism is not the pinnacle of the human experience… this is the most pleasant and gentle way of coming to the realization that it is as if modernism was the golden age, but much like how money cannot buy you know, sentiments, all we did was reach a peak in increasing the standard of living that then demanding we turn inward and sideways and backwards minus grave economic tragedy, embarrassing illness, dramatic religious developments like Protestantism, but instead finding new in what already was blah blah blah … post modernism is the humbling realization that we aren’t done I suppose even though it looks like it… advancements in classical institutions are merely progress, whereas collective critical analysis rather than “imperialistic” in a way mentality or “we are on our way” or “man’s greatest achievements” instead it’s more like, yeah we are going to keep advancing, but what about racism or sexism? We can’t like, give people the right to vote again …

[@4_times_college_dropout_tr24]

"There is nothing to guide or constrain our thoughts feelings. So we can do or say whatever we feel like." Isn't this the purpose of reason so we don't just act on animal instincts (emotions)? To stop us becoming insane? How can you live in the world today without this and not be an animal, which has its own dangerous far worse than just becoming mad? "Relieves me of the obligation to be right and only to be interesting" must be madness because without responsibility to tackle human suffering - through realistic ways - would lead to becoming an mad human animal... wait.

[@retroblue69696]

I can’t tell if your comments are serious or just sarcasm

[@jameslykins7560]

A really great book.

[@siyaindagulag.]

More questions than answers. In itself an answer ; of sorts .

[@ulyssesodysseus2452]

hicks is maybe 1 person i would like to meet the most alive today

[@OuroborosChoked]

Why should existence necessitate a meaning "or be absurd"? Isn't the absurdity of existence a presupposition, not a foregone conclusion? Are rocks absurd? Is the universe itself absurd and by whose estimation? I would suggest that absurdity is only absurd to the one making the assertion. In and of itself, existence is neither absurd nor anything else. It just is.

[@christopherlees1134]

With just four questions, you've managed to solve philosophical conundrums that entire schools of thought have struggled with for generations. Just think of all those existentialists who spent their lives trying to rescue life itself from absurdity, basically ever since The Gay Science. Well done! Are you a genius?

[@leosuttles1461]

Wikipedia - Hicks's book Explaining Postmodernism was criticised by Matt McManus (lecturer in Sociology at the University of Calgary and the author of The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism and A Critical Legal Examination of Liberalism and Liberal Rights amongst other books) as misrepresenting much of Western philosophy and being "full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors."[13] McManus also says, Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables. Lyotard claims that, “Saddam Hussein is a product of Western departments of state and big companies,” which Hicks interprets to mean that Hussein is a “victim and spokesman for victims of American imperialism the world over.” In fact, Lyotard’s essay discusses the early support Hussein received from the American government during his prolonged war against Iran in the 1980s. These interpretive problems immediately make one suspicious that this book may be less about explaining postmodernism in a liberal and charitable way and more about lumping together and dismissing all forms of left-wing criticism that may owe an intellectual debt to continental European thought.[13]

[@KD-rs6xx]

brilliant, i'm on a Hicks rampage. i could never 'get' Kant, and Hicks helps break that language down.

[@ntodd4110]

If you never "got" Kant, then how do you know Hicks' critique isn't based on a misrepresentation?

[@Faeron1984]

@@ntodd4110 If all things are subjective why does it matter?

[@jsomoya8368]

Yeah, Hicks is a pro-capitalist Objectivist, but the history of ideas presented here is fairly standard and what one would learn in any decent undergraduate philosophy program. It hits all the major points in the development of late-modern western thought (with some dives into nineteenth and twentieth century political theory) and is written for the non-specialist. For this alone, Hicks deserves some praise. I am sympathetic to Hicks’ project, but he shows his Objectivist colors at a few key points: the most obvious of which is laying the genesis of relativism and irrationalism on Kant. That seems a bit misguided. To an Objectivist, it may seem obvious. But to most other scholars of philosophy, “the fundamental question of reason is its relation to reality” are fighting words. And it is hardly the case that everyone who takes issue with that statement is a postmodernist. And anyway, Hegel is surely the more appropriate target for the canonical nineteenth century figure that presages postmodernism's illiberalism and to whom most younger theory-oriented academics seem to be in thrall. Nonetheless, if you have some general familiarity with the history of ideas and are curious about postmodernism’s place in it, this is a good introduction. Another excellent critical account of postmodernism from an academic is Gavin Kitching’s The Trouble with Theory: The Educational Costs of Postmodernism. Also, Anthony Kronmen’s Education’s End devotes a chapter or so to postmodernism’s place in the history of american higher education. Kitching is a scholar of Marx and Wittgenstein and is fairly well known for his work in political thought and international ethics. Kronmen was the dean of the Yale Law School for many years and teaches history of philosophy in Yale’s directed studies program. Neither could be called conservatives by any stretch of the imagination.

[@DrEnginerd1]

j somoya you said a whole bunch of stuff without saying anything at all. That's an impressive skill.

[@TheYgds]

@Cameron Belt Uhmmm....j somoya intimated quite a lot. Just because someone is articulate and detailed does not diminish their contribution. It does, in fact, enhance their position. Not everyone has a proclivity for banal use of the English language, wherein brevity is mistaken for value or in more extreme cases, profundity. You sound (though it may not be the case, so please don't take it personally) like one of those people who would say "I love reading, except for all the words". To break it down, it was pointed out that Stephen Hicks ideas are being filtered through an Objectivist or even politically conservative lense, colouring his hypotheses regarding postmodernism; the far left has a crisis of faith and uses the most irrational philosophical framework to re-introduce Marxist-like doctrines. I don't know if this is the case for Dr. Hicks, but it may well be true. Next, it was recommended that other analyses and critiques of postmodern thought be incorporated for interested parties. The recommendations consisted of the writings of individuals who (I am guessing) identify with left-leaning political values. This was meant to show that, regardless of the political persuasion, critical examination of postmodernism still bears it out as having flaws. j somoya was quite informative, and has given me (for one) some homework to do.

[@homo-sapein8091]

TheYgds You and j Somoya say a whole lot without saying anything. Typical of the critic Hicks tries to elaborates in his work. To deny reasons relation to reality one must show that it has no consequences once applied. You may deconstruct reason all you want with as many words as you'd like to but at the end of the day, reason is the the only way we've been able to progress economically, politically, and socially. All that academic rhetoric has done for us is cause conflict after conflict not to mentions the hundreds of millions of life lost.

[@TheYgds]

Homo-Sapien.....I am not totally sure why you chose to insult me. I am pretty tired of people saying that, learn to read is my only recommendation, and I'll leave it at that. The comment was not meant to give "new" information, but merely show that j somoya did at least bring up other thinkers that oppose postmodernism that aren't capitalist/right wing leaning. To your comment, I must agree; reason, free from reality, is dangerous. It falls perilously into the same oversimplification that occurs when student physicists calculate the behaviour of a sphere in a vacuum, but are in fact dealing with a tennis ball in air under the influence of gravity. The oversimplification fails to describe the behaviour accurately or robustly, and therefore is not predictive of things in the real world. It would be good to remember, however, that theory did precede our current systems of economics and politics (Adam Smith, Hobbes etc), it just so happened that the theory was robust enough to be successful in the real world. Partially because they were based more on observation and study, rather than wishlisting or idealisation. It was not fully predictive, hence the modifications that have occurred over time to the capitalist system, but the theory was, nonetheless, robust. Postmodern theory and Marxist theory were/are simply not robust or predictive, and so they collapse upon scrutiny (Postmodernism) or experiment (Marxism).

[@RatatRatR]

This is a good first post followed by a completely stupid thread.

[@Lord_Volkner]

Does anything exist outside of the mind? If everything exists only inside the mind, then Kant didn't destroy reason by that definition of reason. To assume that reason is only valid if it can explain all there is to know about reality is a very dubious assumption. To say that we must reject reason if it can't reveal to us the entire nature of reality is like saying that we must reject hearing if it can't reveal to us the entire nature of light. This assumes that the function of reason is to know reality, yet it seems more likely that the function of reason is to allow us to navigate that portion of reality that we do perceive.

[@SkyTheSorcerer]

The point being made is that Kant is the first to place a significant restriction on reason. Suddenly reason is not all conquerable and it does not establish universal concepts from reality but it imposes itself on reality, the noumenal is not apparent to us through reason (that is not to say that the point, or even understanding of philosophy, by Hicks is correct). I could also point out that the ability to navigate reality presupposes the understanding of reality and the establishment of universal concepts which allow us to conduct our activities.

[@Lord_Volkner]

@@SkyTheSorcerer "I could also point out that the ability to navigate reality presupposes the understanding of reality..." I think this sentence might be correct if you changed _presupposes the understanding_ to _presupposes _*_an_*_ understanding._ As I read it, it supposes that a full understanding of reality is required to navigate reality. One need not know the location of every high place that exists to reason that jumping from such a place is not wise. We need only navigate that portion of reality that we perceive and even then there's no guarantee that we will navigate it properly. Reason allows us to examine our previous attempts to navigate reality and make judgments as to whether they were 'successful' or 'unsuccessful' as we define successful and unsuccessful. Again, I would point out that the function of reason is NOT to know reality, but to navigate it as we perceive it.

[@SkyTheSorcerer]

​@@Lord_Volkner I would argue, that the reality, or existence, of an object is not entirely dependent on the existence of all reality. From this I believe that the knowing of reality, the noumenal, is not contingent on knowledge of the whole of reality but being able to correctly decipher objects around us - for me that is having a correct understanding of reality, to know of the object, I could be more strict and say that these representations will have to be ordered into concepts. For example, when encountering an object which will not conform to rationally established concepts then we can establish the representation as either illusory or true. For the former we have denied the object and learnt of reality through reason, the object is false as it does not conform to our concepts. For the latter, we establish the concept as false and requiring restructuring, we reestablished these concepts through rational structuring, as such our perception of previous representations has changed and we have a better understanding of reality in thanks to rationality.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

@@SkyTheSorcerer A lot of people seem to think that because we do not yet and may never understand all of reality, it somehow follows that we should abandon such an aspiration. As you point out, we expand the circle of things we understand and it becomes possible to expand it further. Giving up because we’re not finished seems silly to me.

[@Individual_Lives_Matter]

Pure reason leads to very unrealistic views. I’ve know more than a few professors that spent so much time in abstraction that they were right less often than a broken clock.

[@yahwhey2392]

Mfw all of this applies to 2017

[@Gili0]

Pg 127 3:50:00 Bookmark

[@Gili0]

5:30:00

[@tobyiy]

hell yeah, thanks for the upload

[@859902]

what also unites left and right collectivism is a deep and very disturbing misanthropy

[@drstrangelove09]

Did Postmodernism lead to the conclusions of Heisenberg? If so then does that raise doubt about quantum mechanics?

[@cas343]

You betcha.

[@normansmith4166]

2:47:00

[@painmonopoly6930]

41:10

[@clbrans1]

3:37:52

[@rphilipsgeekery4589]

8 year old post but boy is it still relevant , I know nothing about postmodernism or philosophy but I know woke , and everything he's saying 30 mins in to stinks of woke , do much so I'm struggling to bear it ;)

[@Behemoth3434]

I didn't know the audiobook was free, good.

[@HouseholdDog]

A philosophy that says contradictions are fine and you can't trust your senses or rational argument. Sounds like a cult to me.

[@olserknam]

What guarantee IS there that your senses always tell you the truth or that the things you perceive as rational are truly so?

[@jpianfetti]

@@olserknam it doesn't matter if they consistently tell you the truth, and in the cases where they don't, you have other senses (or extended senses) that consistently tell you the truth.

[@olserknam]

@@jpianfetti 1. You're contradicting yourself. If it doesn't matter whether senses tell the truth, why are you using the assumption that "some senses consistently tell you the truth" as an argument in that very same sentence? 2. What do you even mean by "extended senses"?

[@jpianfetti]

@@olserknam 1. I mean to say as long as they consistently tell you the truth (i'm not going to get into an epistemological debate about your version of truth) and 2. instrumentation. you can't see an atom, but an electron microscope can. To the extent that it's useful (which is almost all reality almost all the time) the senses do a really good job showing you what is real.

[@olserknam]

@@jpianfetti Yes, if we're talking only about applications of what our senses tell us. Inside the paradigm that our senses are able to perceive, everything is consistent and we get the result. However, from a standpoint of pure knowledge gaining, this doesn't mean we can in any way verify if our senses are actually telling us the truth about the world, because our senses is the only source we have at the end of the day.

[@ChildrenOfTheEagle]

I would watch the shit out of a audio+video book like this!