Episode

Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[@honingbij7106]

Thank you so much! Your series are a great help for me, getting through my introduction course into ethics. After I have finished this course I will definitely be back for your other episodes, there are so many! And it 's a pleasure to listen to you. Thanks again :)

[@ratedAD]

Absolutely phenomenal explanation! Thank you.

[@kusha010]

Thank you, great discussion..

[@silencio4660]

This is so awesome, thanks man.

[@iandaelman8369]

Hope the next episode will come soon. I'm a big fan keep up the great work!

[@AllYouWantAndMore]

Yay!!! I want it more frequently! But I'd like to buy a hoodie with the logo and the tagline about wanting to know more, or one of your favorite quotes. Maybe you can make a printful account with some designs. I would just donate for the sake of altruism but I just listened to your Ayn Rand episode and think it's better if I'm selfish about it.

[@fnot9600]

I've been waiting for quite a while now for you to cover Postmodernism. Finally! Thank you! Looking forward to the upcoming episodes

[@DavidBuckingham-Guitarist]

What a great podcast/video. Subscribed and looking forward to more...

[@acolytes777]

Excellent presentation

[@1luisvargas]

Can't wait for the next episode!

[@deomeslives]

Perceptions! So interesting! 😉

[@irlc1254]

You podcasts are really educational. Thank you so much. I can appreciate the postmodern argument but I can't help but sense that postmodernism is self-defeating and self-contradictory. It claims there are no grand narratives, yet it asserts fragmentation is good. On what basis and evidence does it arrive at conclusion? How does it know that fragmentation will not be far worse than grand narratives in the long run? And how does it make the assessment that it is *good*? Is there an absolute standard of *good* in postmodernism? And why should you or I subject ourselves to its definition? I'm suspicious that it's trying to smuggle in grand claims that it has no right to make. I'll keep an open, but watchful, eye as I make my way through the next episodes. Thanks for making me think!

[@AccioFreaks]

Paul De Man calls deconstruction a strategy without finality. Every reading is an attempt at revealing neglected different meanings. There are so many meanings because there are so many readings. Since this process continues without an end, deconstruction basically attempts to uncover that there is no actual meaning at all. That's why the meaning or understanding is deferred and postponed. He also argues in his work 'The Resistance to Theory' that all resistance to theory does is to create another theory that will stand against the one you are resisting to. Postmodernism does not claim that there is an absolute final destination to arrive, it just claims that no representation of the world, or reality for that matter, is credible at all. That's why Lyotard promotes incredulity towards metanarratives, in other words, disbelief in authoritative discourses. Postmodernism is weird and sometimes hard to grasp. As far as I understand, the internal chaos within postmodernist thought in general mirrors the external chaos of our lives. I believe it is not attempting to make itself reader friendly anytime soon. If you're having trouble understanding some of the theories, or postmodernism in general, I would suggest reading Stuart Sim's "Fifty Key Postmodern Thinkers". He is extremely reader friendly and his other works on literary theory and criticism are easy to read as well. Hope this helps!

[@markoslavicek]

As AccioFreaks explained, I'd say postmodernism isn't particularly a philosophy or a 'claim', but rather a method or a way of approaching things. For every assertion, it responds with a 'why'. There is no end goal because one can always go further.

[@irlc1254]

@@markoslavicek Thanks. Please see response to AccioFreaks above.

[@AccioFreaks]

​@@irlc1254 I can't find your reply in the dropdown comments but I'll base mine on what you wrote according to the email KZbin sent me prior to its disappearance. I share your prejudice towards postmodernism, in general, and the poststructuralist technique of deconstruction, in particular. When I wrote my initial comment, I was a master's student trying to keep an open mind and understand the inner workings of the dominant mode of today's cultural and literary analysis, as well as criticism. Nowadays, I believe it's just a way of masking the truth by hiding one's inadequacy behind some transcendental mysticism and ornamented language-which is full of scientific jargon, used without any reasonable knowledge, that falls apart in any objective means of analysis. As you pointed out previously, there are some major issues in deconstruction that defy reason and promote skepticism over the threat of having an empirical approach to any matter. I myself am leaning more and more towards integrating evolutionary theory into the analysis of literature, for which I would recommend reading the works of scholars who promote the so called "literary Darwinism" movement. Cheers.

[@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt]

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!

[@projectmalus]

I've been thinking that what brains do is similar to calculus. Think about how reality thru the senses is perceived, each moment is very similar to the next usually, with small changes. So in analyzing and coming up with a semi-accurate picture of reality by using calculus, the person can get on with their day. It's kind of the opposite of fragmentalization. Is this why smaller groups are (arguably) more cohesive and productive? That the fragmentation of reality tends to creep back in somehow, when the relationship changes thru the size of the group? Trust is lost because fragmentation creeps in as the size of the group becomes larger, since we lose the ability to perform calculus on something so chaotic. This then inspires more control politically which sort of works (depending on freedom of speech) and economically which doesn't (forms classes). So the fragmenting of society that PoMo desires is about forming many smaller groups with more autonomy, which makes it more amenable to this sort of calculus on a larger scale than individual.

[@RealBonnieBlue]

Hi Stephen West. Absolutely love your videos. When are you going to upload your work on the Greeks?

[@lupin7559]

The Greeks are thoroughly discussed on the earlier episodes of the podcast. Episodes 1 - 15 if that's what you're talking about. I wouldn't be surprised if he started uploading the newer episodes because he constantly mentions that he was "terrible" at podcasting in the earlier episodes. Of course I disagree!

[@RealBonnieBlue]

He shouldn't worry too much, the earlier ones are great too, if not better in my opinion. Hellenism has always been more enlightening, substantial and complete for me., His discussion on the Greeks is very worthy of being shared on youtube and I encourage others to seek them out. Cheers

[@user-ye7fk7yv3y]

My favorite so far 😍

[@Philosophase]

Many people are quick to demonize postmodernism. Excellent outline of this subject. You explained many points that many people seem to overlook.

[@nonamed56]

Overall, postmodernism, as I understand it, is anti-science. That seems to be a good enough reason to demonize it

[@platoniczombie]

@@nonamed56 incorrect. They're not anti-science. They are only stating that you should be more critical of it because often times, they fall to the same social assumptions that everyone does. (Think how the earth was once flat, how it was once the center of the universe and solar system, look at humoralism, think how people use to think brain size was smaller depending on race, etc...)

[@nonamed56]

@@platoniczombie that sounds reasonable, but where is the fun in that? postmodernism can't be that boring, right?

[@platoniczombie]

@@nonamed56 how is it boring? The vast majority of people don't question it. There's an underlining moral to post-modernism; that being it's your responsibility to make others aware, even when they don't want to be. In that respect, they echo Plato (the allegory of the cave to be specific). Post-modernism isn't as ground breaking as they fashion themselves to be.

[@nonamed56]

@@platoniczombie interesting. Do you consider yourself a postmodernist? or what is your philosophy?

[@hashishincloudyeyes6887]

Thanks for this series. This may be a bit off topic but I’d like to ask a question. If you already have answered please direct me to that show. I’d really like to hear about the philosophy. What was Jung talking about during an interview in his older years about seeing around corners? You can find it on KZbin. He spoke about this reality of perhaps another dimension that suggests a phenomenon. Some sort of realm that is beyond conscious detection. Really like your show

[@AliRaza-sn7wo]

I think by this he was referring to cognitive function of Intuition, particularly Introverted Intuition. Unconscious has a realm of its own, beyond conscious realm. It has that continuously goes on in the background of psyche. We access it in crude form in the dreams, where it appears to us symbolically giving us valuable information about our present as well near future. People who are Introverted Intuition (Ni) dominant types can access this realm as part of their cognition. Depending upon the personality type, that information can appear either as understandable insights - aha moments, hidden patterns that can predict the future, or it might appear in more raw form as visions, which are cryptic and symbolic, conveying far greater information but are less immediately understandable and ambiguous.

[@M4ruta]

18:30 "The a government, it's much easier if everyone is the same person, because they're much easier to control." I disagree. "Divide and conquer" can be a very effective strategy for controlling an opponent who would otherwise outnumber you.

[@yamaguchimediaservices]

They fragment it but they unify the identity groups in the same time. From vegans to LGBTQ. But they took the ideas of Nietzsche and left everything from it what they do not like. Especially Nietzsche hated the equality and his main achievement was the eternal return and the it's belonging: - topology, typology, geneology, hierarchy, active and reactive forces. Check them out!

[@robinbeckford314]

As with your pieces on the Frankfurt School, you manage to find an objective perspective. I'm so used to postmodernism being described from a biased point of view. Thank you for helping me keep an open mind.

[@calebrobertson5041]

Robin Beckford rather ironic comment, an objective view on post modernism.

[@robinbeckford314]

I was not intending any irony, but I see what you mean. |-)

[@wynton921]

Self-Identity is a misnomer, an ambiguous term, defined through cultural norms. Self is a construct.

[@gabbyesi957]

This is my happy place.

[@AlchemistOfNirnroot]

All I've learned is that philosophy is hard...

[@jetblack8250]

Hard but very worth it!

[@CancelledPhilosopher]

Truth is a God to Enlightenment thinkers.

[@Dennis-oc8bn]

Can you do some videos on Critical Realism by Roy Bhaskar, and Margaret Archer's Morphogenetic approach?

[@jamescrocker2716]

Oh boy 2 am!

[@cube.9816]

Finally !

[@Dayglodaydreams]

What's the difference between Derrida's concept of the Trace, and Pierce's theory (or theories) of signs?

[@johncart07]

Postmodernism is like taking all that we have learned about the human experience, and then saying "back to the drawing board". It smuggled in its own epistemology and ontology. That's the problem with trying to solve things with pure intellect. Intellect can only address a part of the problem.

[@oaxacachaka]

I think one thing that could throw a wrench into post structuralism is that similar philosophies have come out of very different cultures. More specifically, I think that if you look at Indian thought, various types of Buddhist and Hindu thought, it is incredibly striking how that have come to similar conclusions as people in the West. So, why would Western and Eastern philosophies be so similar if grand narratives are only generated relative to certain cultures? It could be that going back to ancient Greece maybe there was some contact with India. One example is the idea of universals. It seems that the East very much delineated universals and understood logic as the play of universals. Interestingly universals are denoted as “conventional” reality. Buddhists would assert that “ultimate truth” is “emptiness” and that it is more of an experience than an idea. In fact the idea is a barrier to the experience. So they are different in that way. Anyway, from what I can tell Eastern philosophy in certain places resembles nominalism, in some places semiotics, in some places mysticism, in some places phenomenology....or maybe I’m just interpreting Eastern and western thought in terms of each other. But that aside, it really does seem to be that both east and west are charting the same territory. It could be that post modernism is simply a throwing up of hands in the difficulty of ascertaining truth in an age of extreme diversity of views.

[@oaxacachaka]

Alex Waller possibly. I just haven’t studied African or Native American or Aborigine belief systems or philosophies if they have the,. But I would imaging we can find parallels between them. My point is that our ideas are not merely culturally contextual. Humans may have specific ways of understanding the world which are inherent to the human mind itself. If this is the case we could sort of map out these potentials. There’s an anthropologist named Lawrence Blair who coined the term of “psycho anthropology”. I have not read much about it and I don’t know if it is a legitimate study but it’s an interesting concept. Different expressions of consciousness among different people. I think structuralist May be closer to the truth but maybe what is structured is bigger than just mythology or language.

[@dellmoney6369]

So what your saying no matter how many books I read lectures listen too sermons or college classes I attend I will NEVER know the "true meaning?" Of life and exsistance bc if I get stuff from antiquity or the latest philosopher i will be at a handicap bc 1) I'm learning from their perspective at that point in time 2) I can only understand it via the way I was taught or my discretion which is just as limiting in itself 3) everything I can learn can may or will be overturned in centuries to come?

[@47shadows76]

Basically

[@mystical5868]

Well yes and no, because the answer to those questions aren't universal. They're rooted in your own experience. There is no universal truth, meaning or reality. But you can seek those answers for yourself.

[@LunaLu-00]

Knowledge is only a knowledge from a certain *perspective* We can only find out things from our narrow, culturally and historically influenced *method of perception* based on culturally biased view and experience through which we make sense of the world. Scientists can only leave those egos and biases they are self-aware of at the door, but not the rest of them, including the ones that make the perception possible.

[@valtex5]

how do we know that we are in the postmodern? (0% cynisim in this question btw)

[@MrMatenizer]

Oh god yes. I've been watching Jordan Peterson talk about the Postmodernists and wondered why he was so upset with them.

[@CoryMck]

He doesn't care about honesty or the meaning of words. He directly lied about C-16 and he calls *everything* neo-Marxism, not the best place to learn about anything first hand.

[@armandvista]

Cory Mck Slight Correction; He didn’t lie about Bill C-16 and he doesn’t call everything Neo-Marxism. Also ironic that you accuse a critic of postmodernism for not caring about the meanings of words lol

[@CoryMck]

Armand Babakhanian quick correction, yes the fuck he did, yes the fuck he does. LOL

[@saschadorian7609]

He may be wrong but he didn't lie. Don't be a mindreader

[@saschadorian7609]

Hes a critic of postmodernism but he's also essentially a postmodernist because he denies objective truth in favour of a pragmatic one. He just hates postmodernism because it makes stories and myths arbitrary and meaningless which he sees as part of the human psyche and the basis for society. Postmodernism is antiscience and reason which is a reason it should be hated but he just hates it because it is anti meaning. Don't do an episode on him Stephen or you will alienate all his fanboys and all his passionate haters, who are frankly more annoying than his fans even if they are not neo-Marxist. An episode more focused on the politics surrounding postmodernism would be good though.

[@binodrijal4734]

Transcript for this episode takes to transcript to episode 117

[@alf525a]

More I listen to post-modernist view more they sound like a skeptic.

[@Sportinglogic]

If you would like a more clearer exposition what Post-Modernism is, please see my exposition at the bottom with a link to it. Post-Modernism is affirming of a greater future of a “will of the people, represented through accountable elected leaders that operates with values of consultation and transparency”. Most commentators like the ones above do not grasp it because P-M is approached very much how an English-speaker would read, for example French as if it is English and then flee, screaming French is meaningless, not a language at all. In other words, modernism is a paradigm qualitatively different from Post-Modernism to be approached as a distinctly different paradigm. Post-Modernism defies definition, yet many people, invoke a definition of Post-Modernism. Please read the segments, which are in the process of completion from the bottom to the top, chronologically: vm.tiktok.com/ZMenfmFkY/

[@ghasaqkareem]

10:00

[@peterschief9778]

You missed the roots of the postmodernist critic.

[@christinemartin63]

Uh oh ... we're back to a squirrelly theory again.

[@nopenope3024]

Im using this reasource to establish a sense on what post modernism is as a philosophy, but sadly this material isnt "naive-friendly". Does anyone care to try to explain postmodernism? Much thanks.

[@MrMatenizer]

It's like Stephen says, not easy to explain. I'd suggest listening to the podcasts on Structuralism first. To understand where that comes from though, I'm sure you'd have to go back as far as the episodes on Kant. And to understand him, listen (or read) the rationalists (especially someone like Descartes for postmodernist ideas) and empiricists. It's been building up to this. If you'd just be tuning in now to history, something like the Israel/Palestine conflict would be very confusing to you. And if someone did explain briefly, you'd have your mind made up in a very simplistic way. There's no clear cut way to explain a movement like this I reckon. It took one of the greatest minds in philosophy to explain the Enlightnment to the world. This material, when listened to fully and from the start, is very friendly to the new listener. You can find this podcast on Spotify and Itunes for free. If you want to read about it, Bertrand Russel's History of Western Philosophy is beautifully written.

[@1luisvargas]

lol

[@markrutledge5855]

Is this video suggesting that all belief in God and holding to historic religions like Christianity and Islam is "religious fundamentalism?" If that is the case that seems to me to be a fairly pejorative understanding of religious thought and practice.

[@EmmaSalokoski364]

I would like to put in a request for an episode where you talk about post-modernism and neo-marxism and Jordan Peterson. It is my impression that Peterson mischarachterizes these, and I would like to hear more.

[@twitte0king]

Endlish is my second language and i studied physics in University. You are right that your american up bringing is narrowed. i never thought of absence is inferior to presence, english is a flawed for many reason, my latin teacher always jokes that english is a bastard language. and post-modernist are so narrow-minded you assume other languages are as dysfunctional as your native tongue. First rule i learn about science, existing theories are not truth, rather our best understanding of truth, and i have never seen Truth with Capital "T" in textbooks. It is not the ego of explaining the reality, but the curiosity that inspired science. i agree chemical engineering and drug test on mice so that ladies can have anti wrinkle lotion is naive and stupid, thats why i dont think it fit in the scientific spirit! they are rich people toying with wealth. so deconstruct capitalism all you want, but i disagree with you about science. if you think language and culture is such a barrier, how can you be sure that you can understand anything?

[@bentaro9743]

the spirit of something is not the important thing here but it’s historical assumptions and methods. So long as the experiment for anti-wrinkles use same methods which underlie science it doesn’t matter if the motive is toying with money or curiosity. Moreover, most Post Modernists are French. And yes, you can be sure you can understand truth but not Truth in their eyes, thought I don’t entirely agree with them. Textbooks don’t have the exact word “Truth” in them, yet they teach things as fact. Truth with a capital T is only an expression, not something people use in daily life.

[@archadeinteriors]

Thank you you cannot contain your love for PM.. I am not alone |?| ! or is it your enthusiastical nature or your enthusiasm for philosophy...ohhhh oh I'm such a fool

[@asphaltpilgrim]

...and as always, I both agree and disagree with postmodernism (at least, as far as I understand it)... but i suppose that is a fairly postmodernist take.

[@MITMathematica]

This how a physicist gave postmodernism a hilarious black eye and live to tell about . For anyone who pays attention to popular accounts of physics and cosmology, quantum gravity is a thing. How could it not be? Quantum gravity is the place where the two pillars of modern physics-quantum mechanics and relativity-collide head-on at the very instant of the Big Bang. The two theories, each triumphant in its own realm, just don’t play well together. If you are looking for fundamental challenges to our ideas about the universe, quantum gravity isn’t a bad place to start. A bit over two decades ago, quantum gravity also proved to be the perfect honey trap for a bunch of academics with a taste for nonsense and an envious bone to pick with science. In 1994, NYU physicist Alan Sokal ran across a book by biologist Paul Gross and mathematician Norman Levitt. In Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science[3], Gross and Levitt raised an alarm about those in the new field of “cultural studies” who were declaring that scientific knowledge, and at some level reality itself, is nothing but a social construct. Unsure whether he should take Gross and Levitt at face value, Sokal went to the library and dove into the literature that they were criticizing. When he came up for air, he was much more familiar with the postmodernist critique of science. He was also appalled at the depth of its ignorance about the subject. Most scientists respond to such nonsense with a muttered, “good grief,” but Sokal felt compelled to do more. He decided to give postmodernists a first-hand demonstration of the destructive testing of ideas that tie science to a reality that cuts across all cultural divides. Sokal had a hypothesis: Those applying postmodernism to science couldn’t tell the difference between sense and nonsense if you rubbed their noses in it. He predicted that the cultural science studies crowd would publish just about anything, so long as it sounded good and supported their ideological agenda. To test that prediction, Sokal wrote a heavily footnoted and deliciously absurd 39-page parody entitled, “Transgressing The Boundaries. Toward A Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.”[ The paper is worth reading just for a belly laugh. It promises “emancipatory mathematics” at the foundation of “a future post-modern and liberatory science.” “Physical ‘reality’,” it declares, “is at bottom a social and linguistic concept.” He embraces the notion, seriously proposed by some, that logic itself is invalidated by “contamination of the social” When he showed it to friends, Sokal says, “the scientists would figure out quickly that either it was a parody or I had gone off my rocker.” Sokal submitted his paper to a trendy journal called Social Text. Understanding the importance of ego, he freely and glowingly cited work by several of the journal’s editors. For their part, the folks at Social Text were thrilled to receive Sokal’s manuscript. Here at last was a physicist who was “on their side!” After minor revisions, the paper was accepted and scheduled to appear in an upcoming special “Science Wars” edition. The bait had been taken, but the trap had yet to be sprung. That came with a piece by Sokal in Lingua Franca that appeared just after Social Text hit the stands, exposing “Transgressing the Boundaries” as the hoax it was. Parody sometimes succeeds where reasoned discourse fails. Sokal’s little joke burst free of the ivory tower on May 18, 1996, when The New York Times ran a front-page article entitled, “Postmodern Gravity Deconstructed, Slyly.”The Sokal Hoax became a hot topic of conversation around the world! Reactions to Sokal’s article were, shall we say, mixed. The editors of Social Text were not amused, to put it mildly, and they decried Sokal’s unethical behavior. One insisted that the original paper was not a hoax at all, but that fearing reprisal from the scientific hegemony, Sokal had “folded his intellectual resolve.” It was lost on them that had they showed the paper to anyone who knew anything about science or mathematics, the hoax would have been spotted instantly. As most scientists did: When I heard about it, I busted a gut! I still laugh, but the Sakai Hoax carries a serious message. In addition to diluting intellectual rigor, the postmodern assault on science undermines the very notion of truth and robs scientists and scholars of their ability to speak truth to power. As conservative columnist George Will correctly observed, “the epistemology that Sokal attacked precludes serious discussion of knowable realities.” Today, from climate change denial, to the anti-vaccine movement, to the nonsensical notion of “alternative facts,” that blade is wielded on both sides of the political aisle. Sokal gets the last word. Quoting from his 1996 Lingua Franca article, “Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the 21st floor.)”

[@twitte0king]

You are the native and biased one... Neural science agree that the brain chemistry is dynamic and brain cell keep changing every second, personality and identity is changing not fixed

[@CplFerro]

A worthwhile episode, but, why should anyone take seriously a philosophical perspective that says that all philosophical perspectives are hopelessly biased and therefore unreliable?

[@marypoppins2044]

Even a biased thinker can stumble onto the truth.

[@atleelang4050]

And what we are learning today is that they were all the way off and that social fragmentation INCREASES tribalism.

[@peterschief9778]

Good intro but too shallow on the roots of postmodernism

[@05deeps]

The title says ‘basic’

[@imnot18okay]

Scientific Method leads to the creation of the phones/ laptops you people use to reject its value. Post modernism hasn't given us shit other that entitled individuals obsessed with there feelings with the ability to reject any criticism on the basis of their philosophy. Scientific method leads to tangible improvement while post modernism leads to what exactly? Why embrace a philosophy that has accomplished nothing in terms of improving society, is it because is helps you justify your unhealthy feelings? I pity all of you... such a sad existence of stagnation and excuses

[@marinstinic5206]

not leading to tangible improvement does not invalidate it. logic isnt your strong side. what are you? a peterson fan?

[@imnot18okay]

@@marinstinic5206 what?

[@alex1701waller]

You kind of sound like an advocate for post modernism... I bet you're not a fan of Donald Trump, eh?

[@alex1701waller]

Philosophize This! Lol... yes, I'm new. I really enjoy your content so far. No need for the grandiose display of humility, I'll stick around. I'm all for entertaining ideas I may disagree with... but I wouldn't expect YOU to understand that!

[@47shadows76]

@@curtiscupach8383 Cool Joke Bruh! Smart people like us who don't support the prez may wanna lay off the Ad Hominem attacks and make an argument! Stay Smart Genius 👌