Postmodernism Explained by Professor Stephen Hicks

💥Join us on our Journey to 1 Million Subscribers💥 Stephen R. C. Hicks is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society.
Join our exclusive community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/
OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here:
Paypal: bit.ly/2Tnz8yq
www.subscribestar.com/trigger...
/ triggerpod
Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
About TRIGGERnometry:
Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians.

[@triggerpod]

Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/

[@vingag128]

Why he is a charlatan. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@vingag128]

The actual argument is not that everything is subjective. The argument is that many Post Modern philosophers deny that objective reality exist. I don't know if that statement is true or not but what i know is that Stephen R. C. Hicks is politicly motivated. So for him, everything is subjective to profit his political views. Philo (wisdom) sophy (love), he prefers his love of politics over wisdom. That video explains it well, the first page in his book is filled with mistakes.... FIRST PAGE. kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@shawnaweesner3759]

There are some things in life that, no matter how hard we try to make them funny, just aren’t. Comedians can make a joke about these things, but these jokes will fall flat! The problem is, society may not agree on what those things are, that are not funny, I mean.

[@egertonmark]

@@vingag128 that video essay you link to is rather unconvincing.

[@MYMINDism]

If you guys have the balls get Curtis yarvin, please don't be afraid you have had worse

[@istvantoth7431]

Those people who really should will never watch this video. We are just entertaining ourselves really. These kind of conversations should be on BBC but of course the gates are kept well... Masses need to be saved from common sense and reality.

[@904daniela]

I post things like this on Fb - no one watches or comments. I post a picture of my left pinky toe and I get a hundred likes and 50 comments. Sigh.

[@dohlecarnett1866]

No shit. But this works in the other direction as well.

[@Zarrov]

destroy BBC. Reject institutions. Reject, ignore, speak your mind, object, say loudly. You will be surprised. That's what Central-Eastern Europe learned and that's what freed us from communism. The thing is...even acolytes of the system don't believe in the system. because it is laughably bonkers.

[@istvantoth7431]

@@dohlecarnett1866 I actually agree on that. But if you check which "side" has more resources, a bigger 'propaganda machine' behind them ... then you might see that the playing field has been uneven to put it lightly ... check the google, microsoft edge, facebook and all sorts of feeds on your device ... full of left , almost far-left propaganda, not one single. remotely conservative news source. Don't get me wrong, I agree on some left-wing issue, they have a point here and there. And they are terribly wrong on some other issues ... but not one single conservative argument?? That's my issue.

[@istvantoth7431]

@@904daniela don't worry they are reading it, most people are just cowards to attach their opinion to yours when it comes to more complex, societal issues ... because when they respond their "friends" and colleagues will see that too.

[@skepticallypissed2074]

When we lose the ability to have a reasonable conversation the only thing left is violence

[@j_freed]

Depends for whom. Takes two to tango. Do you have aims and values independent of a socially fabricated narrative, because well then you're free. You're even free of violence and the world doesn't make you crazy. Choose wisely.

[@skepticallypissed2074]

@@j_freed conversation, reasoned argument and claims that are demonstrable is all we have. If one side will not agree to use these three things to communicate,then our choices on how to proceed are limited. I don't see a peaceful decade approaching and freedom almost always costs blood. I am still hopeful that reason can still triumph but still a little pessimistic about peoples ability to apply it

[@6teezkid]

Yes...otherwise, why was civilization created by humans?

[@charlesoleary3066]

j freed actually it doesn’t , if one side has the power to do what it wants, it invariably will.

[@eurodelano]

And we’re at the point where the post-modernist/Critical Theorists say logic is white supremacy as is mathematics.

[@black_eagle]

Postmodernism in a nutshell: no Logos; no ordering principle underlying the world; no basis for Order--politically, philosophically or scientifically; anti-Logos or Chaos as an anti-philosophy.

[@mustang607]

If George Carlin was alive today his comedy would be brutally heckled or just plain not allowed at most Universities.

[@moodyonroody5313]

i love most of george carlin ... different time - not sure re disparagement of fat americans ... altho it is v funny if youve seen that one must admit.

[@marciojose1973]

...and they call themselves Lenny Bruce's fans!

[@Ladynitewolf7715]

@@moodyonroody5313 and right there you fall into postmodernism...

[@marcustulliuscicero2676]

@@moodyonroody5313 And what's wrong with disparagement of unhealthy, self-destructing addictions exactly? Those lazy fat pigs don't respect themselves, why should others respect their bad habits?

[@sp4rtavus244]

Why? Carlin aint right wing is he?

[@jimsteffel]

Some pigs are more equal than others.

[@just_another32]

Oink oink!

[@anitamaguire7640]

Best comment so far!

[@marysueeasteregg]

@@just_another32 Curious if you missed the apropos literary allusion....

[@just_another32]

If you mean Animal Farm, read it when I was 7, big fan of Orwell. But if there was some other meaning nested in there then yes I missed it. And just thought I'd oink!

[@just_another32]

Doesn't it say some animals?

[@viramandybur4915]

Thank you for the much-needed optimism, Professor. So much information in this interview, Francis and Konstantin...will need to listen twice!

[@johndead249]

28:20 “I don’t know what your sexualities are...” Both smirk and refrain from calling each other gay because it’s a serious conversation. Very professional

[@serenedevil6798]

@DragonFox If it wasn't clear enough, I think John means calling each other gay as part of a joke or insult.

[@Chris.1812]

If this guy ever gets cancelled, at least he has an alternative career in ventriloquism to fall back on... probably the best I’ve ever seen

[@cosmicdrambler3384]

What a great guest! Stephen Hicks is the kind of careful and balanced thinker we need to re-stabilise society.

[@kcl4364]

He isn't. He's a very poor scholar, like Peterson, and therefore it's all too easy for people to legitimately dismiss his work

[@cosmicdrambler3384]

@@kcl4364 Only if you have decided in advance that they must be wrong because you don't like what they say :D

[@kcl4364]

@@cosmicdrambler3384 No, it's because Hicks has a piss poor understanding of Kant and his reasoning falls to pieces after that. Peterson's critique of PoMo is entirely taken from Hicks' book. It's widely recognised as garbage scholarship. I loathe SJW types as much as the next person and respect Peterson's stance against them to a point but these guys are genuinely hack scholars and often are unhelpful in combating this ideology

[@cosmicdrambler3384]

@@kcl4364 Can you give a particular example of what they got wrong? What would you suggest as a better critique of PoMo?

[@kcl4364]

@@cosmicdrambler3384 Hicks claim that Kant is counter-Enlightenment is laughable. He contends that Kant's philosophy is subjectivist yet part of the point of the First Critique (and German Idealism more widely) is to save objectivity hence Beiser's subheading to his book German Idealism "The struggle against subjectivism". Hicks (and later Peterson) seem to believe that Foucault and Lyotard drawing connection between Knowledge/Reason and Power is somehow a condemnation of the former due to being connected with the later. This is a ridiculous misreading of those thinkers. There is nothing inherently bad with power as such for these thinkers, it can be good or bad ( in fact Peterson almost parrots Foucault when he talks about competence as power). Foucault's project in Discipline and Punish is in part a Nietzschean critique of the very same Marxist notion of power that Hicks and Peterson lazily believe Foucault is espousing. Neither Foucault or Lyotard were Marxist at the time of their postmodern phase. Lyotard lost many Marxist friends after writing Libidinal Economy.

[@axelphilippson402]

More power to Stephen Hicks. All the best from Germany .

[@adaptivebusinessconsulting8080]

Awesome, intelligent, optimistic and outlines a way forward. One of the most informative and insightful interviews I have listened to in 10 years.

[@James-ll3jb]

Except he's full of b.s.

[@dingleberrysnigglefritz]

@@James-ll3jb How so?

[@James-ll3jb]

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY Plus this review given here in several parts: Part 1:A Review of Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks Matt McManus Introduction It might seem unusual to review a book that was originally published in 2004. But Explaining Postmodernism has enjoyed a recent resurgence of popularity. Jordan Peterson has praised the book, and Hicks himself has become a well-known commentator on postmodernism, although he has more than his fair share of zealous critics. I’ve been writing and reading a lot on the topic of postmodernity-particularly what I call postmodern conservatism-of late. While I admire some of the postmodern authors discussed by Hicks, I have generally been critical of postmodernism as a whole. Moreover, while I am personally affiliated with the Left and disagree with Hicks’ objectivist political outlook, I agree that postmodernism and its various activist offshoots wield too much cultural influence, especially in academia. I fall into a category I have elsewhere called the post-postmodern Left. So I read Hicks’ book to see if he offered any especially useful intellectual weapons with which to push back against the pomo dragon. Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, who are really only the focus of the beginning and end of the book. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, and includes very crude characterizations of seminal thinkers such as Hume, Kant, Hegel, Popper, Wittgenstein and many others. For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz Hicks review Part 2: The Enlightenment and Its Discontents The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. He includes obvious picks such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard, three of Hicks’ four horsemen of postmodernity. But others-Richard Rorty and Jacques Lacan-have a debatable association with postmodernity and some of those included were even outright critics of postmodernism, such as the feminist legal scholar Catherine Mackinnon, author of “Points Against Postmodernism,” and Luce Irigaray, whose work is a frequent target of postmodern feminists due to its alleged essentialism. These problems persist throughout the book. 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. Hicks claims that postmodernism is defined by four features. First, it is a metaphysically anti-realist position, which holds that it is “impossible to speak meaningfully about an independent reality.” Second, postmodernism is epistemologically skeptical of the possibility of acquiring objective knowledge about the world. Third, it is methodologically collectivist, regarding human nature as primarily defined by group affiliations. And, fourth, postmodernism is politically committed to protecting those groups which postmodernists regard as victims. This is an admirably clear account of postmodernism, but it is also problematic. While one might be able to link any given postmodern author with one or more of Hicks’ features, not all-or even most authors-fit neatly into these categories. Hicks talks about postmodernism as a whole, but seems uninterested in the thinking of individual authors, who might problematize his tidy narrative generalizations. For instance, you might call Michel Foucault a metaphysical anti-realist and an epistemological skeptic. But he was notably individualistic in his moral and aesthetic outlook, celebrating counterculture and anti-state movements, and had a mixed history of supporting political movements oriented around group identity. Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable. Virtually any scholastic thinker of note, from Anselm to Avicenna, had complex thoughts on the relationship between reason and faith, the individual and society, and so on. Thomas Aquinas would have found it odd to discover that he was a “collectivist,” given that so much of his work dealt with individual human happiness, and that his natural law theory contained early arguments for placing limitations on the state. Things get even worse when Hicks discusses the Enlightenment, which ironically seems to be the only period of Western philosophy for which he has any fondness. Hicks argues that the characteristics of the Enlightenment include: metaphysical realism, epistemological concern with reason and experience, understanding the human being as a tabula rasa, ethical individualism, support for liberal capitalism, and so on. But this reads less like a list of characteristics shared by all Enlightenment thinkers, and more like a narrow summary of John Locke’s greatest hits. Of course John Locke is a seminal Enlightenment thinker, who argued that a human being was a tabula rasa and learned from experience, and who supported private property and individual rights. But Locke himself argued extensively against another Enlightenment author, Thomas Hobbes, who supported an absolute sovereign’s entitlement to trample individual and property rights if necessary. Similar problems emerge when you try to jam any other major Enlightenment thinker into Hicks’ list of characteristics. Descartes, whom Hicks praises, certainly did not believe that reason was largely drawn from experience. Indeed, Descartes’ entire skeptical argument was about how all experience of the external world might be illusory. Spinoza was not especially individualistic either: his Ethics is a manual on how to stoically accept that we are all a part of, and determined by, God. Even Adam Smith, the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, would have rejected the arguments that human beings are blank slates, and that it is an unquestionably good thing for all people to be individualistically self-interested.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz Hicks review Part 3: The Counter-Enlightenment Perhaps the single weakest part of Hicks’ book is his account of the so-called Counter-Enlightenment. Hicks claims that Counter-Enlightenment thinkers attacked the foundations of reason, therefore laying the intellectual foundations of postmodernism. But his reading of many of these thinkers is very shoddy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his treatment of Immanuel Kant, whom Hicks argues is somehow a Counter-Enlightenment thinker. This is all the more ironic, given Kant’s argument in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that, “man-and in general every rational being-exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion.” Hicks makes the baffling argument that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a skeptical epistemological attack on empirical realism and the possibility of true knowledge of the real world, designed to shore up Kant’s religious faith against the attacks of Enlightenment science. This is simply not true. Kant’s entire project was to show that empirical reason was an essential part of how human beings develop a comprehensive understanding of the world. As P. F. Strawson has argued, the Kantian project is about demonstrating the productive “bounds of sense” through which we interpret the empirical world, i.e. to demonstrate that, although we never have access to “things in themselves,” independently of our cognitive processes, the fact that these processes are common to all human beings gives form to a world that looks the same to everyone a posteriori. This makes science possible-and, indeed, necessary. Moreover, Kant’s first Critique culminates in an account of the antinomies of reason, an argument which frustrated centuries of theological attempts to prove Christian dogma. As for Hicks’ later comments that Kant devalued individualism in favor of dutiful sacrifice for others, or that Kant believed war was a necessary feature of human life: these are astonishing accusations to level against the author of “Perpetual Peace,” who claimed that each individual’s autonomy granted him an absolute dignity, putting him “beyond price.” These interpretive issues speak to a deeper problem in the book. When Hicks argues that “any thinker who claims that reason cannot know reality is not fundamentally an advocate of reason,” he is taking an exceptionally narrow view of the history of Western philosophy. Essentially, any thinker who is not an empirical realist like Hicks is apparently “not an advocate of reason.” So, when Kant praises reason but claims it has limits, in Hicks’ eyes he becomes a Counter-Enlightenment thinker and a precursor to postmodernism. For Hicks, Hegel-who claimed that fragmentary subjective opinion must gradually give way to “absolute knowing”-argues that “reality is an entirely subjective creation.” Heidegger, who argues that metaphysics must end and be replaced by “thinking,” is summarized by Hicks as believing that “the ultimate revelation [of existence] is of the truth of Judeo-Christian and Hegelian metaphysics.” Hicks even argues that logical positivists and philosophers of mathematics, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, paved the way for Karl Popper, W. V. O. Quine and Thomas Kuhn, who, according to Hicks, argue that “we are stuck inside a subjective system with no direct access to reality.”

[@hughjasse3375]

Great interview. Stephen's book "Explaining Postmodernism" was the one that really woke me up 10 years ago to the current culture wars. Proper intellectual giant.

[@wodenravens]

It is a terrible bit of scholarship. Truly terrible. And I don't have any time at all for postmodernism. But Hicks is not a good scholar at all. Watch this critique: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@billsimms2511]

Stephen Hicks is great. This podcast is real informative.

[@skwest]

@@wodenravens You made your point in, at least, one other thread. No need to work your way down through the comments, shitting on everyone's opinions. Just sayin'

[@wodenravens]

@@skwest Even the Mises Institute (one of the most libertarian thinktanks on the planet) thinks that Hicks' scholarship is piss-poor. Personally, I think that people in this comment thread deserve to know just how poor he is at scholarship. I'm not shitting on everyone's opinions. I am here to discuss the topic of the interview. 99% of the comments here are about how great Hicks is. Yet you are moaning about the 1% that isn't. Sounds like you want a safe space.

[@skwest]

@@wodenravens No, not at all. But the fact is that it now appears that my remark was premature. I made it through all of the comments (there's fewer than 300), because I was actually interested in this very subject, i.e. opinions regarding Hicks' authority on the subject. Well, after seeing those couple of threads, nearly in succession, with your pushback, I anticipated, wrongly, it would end up dominating the rest. I would delete my other comment, but since I've addressed it here, I'll just leave it. Cheers!

[@eveningall8927]

Glad he was old enough to remember the start of post modernism. Comparing the 60s/70s/80s in the UK to now in the age of internet is to compare very different worlds. The Establishment was really entrenched and the challenge was to make that explicit and to see that everything is political - including the personal.

[@albinosquirlz]

More dots were connected for me in this interview than any other hour of listening that I can recall. Repeat listenings are in my future for sure. Thanks guys 👍👍

[@nikkingman]

try Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon

[@outofbluepills]

What a fantastic episode that was! I'm going to listen to it AT LEAST three times. There was too much articulate insight to absorb in just one hearing. A truly great episode of a great show!

[@harrywallington185]

Yes, I had repeatedly scroll back to review sections. Needed a lot of concentration. But he also did it so well that we need to get the book for the detail. Very smart in the best possible way.

[@MB-dp1rj]

Me too...it was compelling.

[@outofbluepills]

To paraphrase: Given that 2 previous guests on this show made errors, we can reasonably conclude that nothing that ANY guest on this show ever says could possibly be correct, let alone insightful. That's typical SJM (social "justice" monster) "reasoning." This is the kind of "thinking" that results from an education (really, INDOCTRINATION) system that conditiins students on WHAT to "think," not HOW to (clearly) think. Alternatively: Wow, it's almost like Ryan O'Neill doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about!!

[@thaillling9369]

really great, one of your most important episodes for sure.

[@kcl4364]

He is a very poor scholar. His book on postmodernism is terrible and therefore of limited use in combating the SJW crazies unfortunately.

[@thaillling9369]

@@kcl4364 this is the only thing I have seen of his and haven't read any of his books, what I did like is that he was more calm and collected than others discussing these issues, for example while I personally like people like James Lindsay or Jordan Peterson, I can see how sometimes their tone could be off putting to some. This guy just seemed so relaxed.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@advocate1563]

A very clear thinker and communicator who, much like Haidt, keeps the discourse calm but cogent which is a real skill in these emotionally charged times.

[@Natural_law_lawyer]

Haidt is in a different league

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@defenstrator4660]

This is a perfect example of why I have decided that only intelligent people can come up with truly stupid ideas. No idiot would have come up with fascism, communism, or post modernism. It takes a lot of creativity and imagination to have ideas this big, and even more to be able to rationalize to yourself why you are the good guy when doing things that are obviously evil. No actual idiot could have come up with ideas this bad.

[@benaiahwright937]

Unless we need to reevaluate how we measure intelligence. Just because you know big words and can argue rhetorically doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

[@duartecosta2043]

The irony is that the smart, evil people rationalize idiotic ideas and garnish them in order for them to be attractive to stupid people.

[@benaiahwright937]

@@duartecosta2043 great point

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is like the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@j_freed]

'That proude spirit the Devil cannot bear to be mocked.'

[@harbifm766766]

All what Dr. HICKS said was well known since the 90s. But these cultureal marxiest still sailed free through the Institutions... A book Will not fix 50 years of sociatel distruction

[@Macheako]

Books won’t fix anything....a man might though 😂

[@billsimms2511]

That’s what I keep having a hard time with. How did these radical woke spinsters get through universities without having their viewpoint challenged and dismantled? Or did they just scream ‘you are racist’ when challenged?

[@anitamaguire7640]

Fifty years of the total destruction of social cohesion, the family, religion, degeneracy taught to children, and the total annihilation of our history and culture. I still hate them whatever they write in ivory towers. PS And if you never had the absolute misfortune of a university education, the Foucault he described as clever, delighted in knowingly spreading aids to multiple partners, and spent long periods in insane asylums. So of course leftards love him. They love all degeneracy.

[@MrSpiritchild]

@@billsimms2511 It ultimately started 75 years ago when Hitler took control of Germany. When he took power, the communist intellectuals escaped to America, where they have been working for the past 75 years to destroy us from our foundation by promoting the removal of our national values, which are all but extinct now. This is what happens when you trust people that are in love with the sound of their own voices, IE, intellectuals. That being said, fascism, as evil as it may be, is the only thing that has ever beat communism, as communism ultimately succeeds where they can manipulate the people to vote for it.

[@Macheako]

@@billsimms2511 "Media Hit Pieces" tend to work FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY to silence your opposition.... Than actual public debate..... Even the Roses in life....got thorns lol they WANT us to think debate is THE way to go, but yo..... That's NOT what the opposition does....and they're "Winning" lol

[@olegyamleq7796]

WOWW, i don't know about his book, but the mic that Stephen Hicks' uses is great. one of the best sounding remote interviews i have ever heard since the covid lockdowns.

[@michaeldonahoo461]

I enjoyed that interview. It is always good to listen to a positive intelligent person. I recall the quote "You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time". It is that last part of the quote that gives us hope! Perhaps while we people like Stephen Hicks there is reason for hope!

[@Batosai11489]

That was a really good one. It seems like these interviews keep on getting better.

[@EranHertz]

If one word is enough justification for you to cancel another human being, you are not on the right side of history.

[@shaneemanuelle6243]

‘If you can’t reason your way out of it then it does become a power struggle; a matter of physical force.’ That’s rather worrying but perhaps good to acknowledge.

[@penpaper5128]

Anyone who calls someone racist as an argument is racist themselves

[@JoAtkins]

looking forward to this

[@k54dhKJFGiht]

Spectacular omission regarding the negative business models of Social Media, and how they will continue to warp young adults. American leadership has done nothing to alter this.

[@Scott-jj5on]

Imo it's the root cause,there's alot of other factors but living through it all,the world changed and not for the better.

[@shyman3000]

Exactly. Postmodernism is a condition brought on by capitalism and sent into overdrive by media technology.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@mustang607]

If that is their ultimate goal, there is one and only one way to make everyone equal across all dimensions and it is definitely not a desirable outcome.

[@hebber1961]

And not by lifting up but by tearing down. I think they realized it's impossible for all to be equal so they must tear down to equalize.

[@eurodelano]

Their goal is to topple the current system then eternally maintain their death grip on society. Lenin-think. Herbert Marcuse and everyone else at The Frankfurt School were Marxists.

[@heartpath1]

What brilliant and valuable discussion. Thank you!

[@jeffkendo]

Well done, gentlemen. Thank you very much for the insights from Dr. Hicks and yourselves.

[@JohnSmith-iu3ui]

I’ve read his book last summer during the BLM riots/protests to get a clue of what was really going on . Very informative . Postmodern epistemology gave us Critical Social Justice ideology(critical race theory and post colonialism etc) and technically, the BlackLivesMatter movement . Cynical theories is another book about postmodernism I recommend.

[@jetrpg22]

Yes but it was the enlightenment and Hume that gave you postmodernism. In short, every atheist has already conceded the postmodernist correct. If they are aware of it or not.

[@nickelmouse451]

I've not read the whole book, so this may not be representative of it, but his depiction of Thomas Kuhn as an anti-rationalist, postmodernist is very silly.

[@JohnSmith-iu3ui]

@@jetrpg22 no , the enlightenment did not give us postmodernism(at least not directly ) ,but it was the counter-enlightenment that did . Postmodernism rejects objective truth , something that the enlightenment valued.

[@jetrpg22]

@@JohnSmith-iu3ui en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume Now google his name and postmodernism. He is the originator of the idea or premise which postmodernism rests on. Postmodernism is the eventuality or conclusion to enlightenment thinking. I don't wanna say read a book. How about what are the central premises of enlightenment philosophy? From the very beginning Descartes wrote i think therefore i am and at the same time wrote on the brains in the vat. the latter establish the culmination of the logic that started the enlightenment itself. I had no previously mentioned why i listed Descartes. This is why not only is he often cited as the start of the enlightenment his empirical argument of how sense data is ultimately not provable itself thus all such empiricism is fruit of the poisoned tree (i think it works here). As such if empiricism or truth based on physical reality is your premise you can KNOW NOTHING AT ALL. This is the START of the enlightenment. Hume (an enlightenment philosopher) really works this out is the is-ought conundrum. And Nietzsche the fruit of the enlightenment being widely accepted by society. Sorry i know people love to cite the enlightenment like it had it figured out, but it didn't from the beginning.

[@wodenravens]

It is a terrible bit of scholarship. Truly terrible. And I don't have any time at all for postmodernism. But Hicks is not a good scholar at all. Watch this critique: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJY

[@jordanb9915]

I love this man!! So insightful!

[@Liberty-rn4wy]

One of my college professors told us that the Nazis conquered France because the Nazis believed in objective reality (power). Whereas the French were debating subjectivity. So a society mired in relativism might be conquered by one that believes in objective power.

[@AlloBruxelles]

Hands down by far the best interview I've listen to in a long time --thanks, guys.

[@paulcook3613]

Good stuff. Thought provoking and well articulated.

[@ComicGladiator]

"They're idiots." There you go.

[@simonking2869]

I think narcissism a better explanation.

[@Macheako]

@@simonking2869 why? People can’t just be “idiots”?

[@gordons-alive4940]

Not the people who came up with this stuff, though. The tactics they've created have been effective. There's definitely a method to the madness. Destabilization, demoralization. Tear down the existing culture, so that they then can rebuild it around promoting their views and values and only theirs. The people preaching that words they don't like are actual violence, 2 + 2 does not equal four, the constant redefining of words, it's got a purpose.

[@billsimms2511]

@@gordons-alive4940 I don’t get how they’ve not been shut down on universities though. I mean, aren’t people challenging their belief system or do they not bother trying?

[@billsimms2511]

@@gordons-alive4940 I mean, these spinsters are only effective as long as society lets them be. The more people call them out and in them down on various ideas they hold, the less power they have or build .

[@cloudymccloud00]

For me, the most compelling part was the last. What is "compulsory education" but enforced work ("for you own good", of course), and for no pay -- the very definition of slavery. And following on from that, its primary purpose is the conditioning of the masses for a lifetime of (wage) slavery -- for which we should all be grateful. To quote Plato, who regarded education as a prime instrument of state control and indoctrination: "Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him do anything at all on his own initiative; neither out of zeal, nor even playfully...There is no law, nor will there ever be one, which is superior to this, or better and more effective in ensuring salvation and victory in war."

[@seekingfinding6204]

What we're not thinking about: how we see our kids, and then the contrast of our vision of our kids with the way we school them. YES!!! School really seems like a hot mess right now, and I think we're not thinking about this because it's going to be such a massively hellacious job to change it.

[@ethanschmitt8419]

Stephen Hicks is a professor of mine at Rockford University. Truly brilliant along with one of his colleagues and fellow philosophy professors, Matthew Flamm

[@sarahhhh775]

Don't expect a damning critique. From what I've read and watched, he tends to see merely an historical timeline and keeps an even handed view while describing its flaws. He is a formidable intellectual, in any case. Hope you've got your philospher trousers on guys! 😁

[@jetrpg22]

Yes i was also disappointed. But i mean No atheist can intellectually or logically argue against postmodernism, save on a level of preference . Due to the argument of Hume and Descatres. In short the, postmodernist are consistent with the worldview required to hold the value of atheism.

[@mostevil1082]

@jetrpg22 Total bullshit, most atheists see this as just another religion. It has all the worst qualities with none of the positive messages. Just like other religions it's not internally consistant and doesn't accurately describe reality. They're just scooping up all the kids who otherwise would have joined your cults.

[@jetrpg22]

@Bob Charles As a life long human being i call bullshit on your claim. You must be so smart with heavy weight arguments such as, because i identified as a giraffe for 50 years i really know what we giraffes like. " 'value of atheism'?" Hold the concept , hold the position. Whatever you want to call it. Entirely undermine to my argument. Play word games all you want. Notice how you avoid the central reasoning of my claim. Seems like you are avoiding it. You claim to be a seasoned and expert atheist, so let me know why are you an atheist?

[@jetrpg22]

@@mostevil1082 "Total bullshit, most atheists see this as just another religion." Okay most Christian see just see atheism as another religion. It has all the worst qualities with none of the positive messages. Just like other religions it's not internally consistent and doesn't accurately describe reality. They're just scooping up all the kids who otherwise would have joined your cults. Now what? See how anyone can say that. I at least eluded to why the arguments of Hume and Descartes in relation to postmodernism. If you actually know this topic then you know what i am referencing or at least have an idea, or could ask. Brain in vats and is-ought. Im willing to explain what this means to atheism. There is a exception however, here ill expose my reverse scale. If you claim that you are an atheist for no reason other than, you believe god isn't real. Then that is a simple belief based on nothing but your subjective and RELATIVE belief. Making you a postmodernist (and why that is the only internally valid position for atheists). I still think its not valid for further reasons, but at least it can be claimed to be internally consistent. Feel free to justify atheism otherwise. By what standard or principle is it true?

[@ComicGladiator]

@@jetrpg22 You're a one-note intellect, with as much concept of reality as a post modernist.

[@thanksfernuthin]

Francis keeps bringing up home ownership. I guarantee if that's a problem in the UK it's due to the government. If homes and apartments are so damned expensive you can bet the government is keeping builders from making more living spaces.

[@Benjamin.Jamin.]

You need to get a planner / housing expert on. Hicks view on housing is ridiculous. Building Houstons in Europe/UK is entirely ridiculous. The problem is housing includes the need for supporting infrastructure and balancing growth against most country's desire to protect open space and countryside. There are some exceptions for e.g. San Francisco, but again for the UK/Europe, it is complicated and 'just build Houston' is not going to fly.

[@gregridd]

so glad to hear this podcast, it feels like we have worthless public discussion and there is better thing for our collective brains to solve

[@03markimark]

I enjoyed and agreed with a lot of this. I got upset during the little aside about prosperity and housing. I didn’t get the memo about London ‘wanting to attract lots of people to live here’: the place is already extremely densely populated, the South East region is already extremely crowded (different from places in the Professor’s frame of reference in North America) so it’s not just a simple case of “you need to build more blocks of flats”: London is very full indeed, the roads are gridlocked, the motorways and surrounding country lanes and towns are permanently hectic, the Tube and trains and grotesquely overcrowded, the hospitals, schools, shops, car parks and even parks and leisure places are all rammed. Building infinitely more supply to meet demand is the theoretical argument - but the fact is London has a finite amount of space and is already extremely overcrowded. At what point do we say “We do not want our population to go higher now, the infrastructure is overwhelmed and we do not have the money or space to build more?” This is the problem with applying the purely capitalist framework to this, it doesn’t treats as it as a simple marketplace issue, but this is also about our public space and our countryside and our roads and our quality of life. I consider myself right of centre but this capitalistic analysis was really jarring for me. Our generation are seeing falling living standards and conditions, falling job security, falling pay, increasing cost of living. So on economic matters like this I feel myself drawn to the left. Then on postmodern social issues I’m yoinked back to the right. It’s a dilemma.

[@Asptuber]

Indeed. That was a bit painful. Not only do you have the democracy deficit in the question of "wanting to attract more people", you also have the problem of market forces not being a good solution for the misery that comes with (rapid, or rapid -ish) structural changes in the economy. I also felt his hand waveing of economic disparities rather distasteful. What does it help the millions of Nigeria, or even the low income middle aged person in Scandinavia, that the genius creator from Bangladesh has a better shot of it today than 50 years ago?

[@jetrpg22]

@@Asptuber "market forces not being a good solution for the misery that comes with (rapid, or rapid -ish) structural changes in the economy. "How do all these influxes of people get there and afford to live there? Market forces? That being said Hicks clearly doesn't have a clue what is going on.

[@anitamaguire7640]

When he described psychopathic Foucault, who delighted in spreading aids and was literally institutionalized for insanity, as "clever. " He lost me.

[@TheMountainBeyondTheWoods]

First he acknowledged he didn't know about London's specific problems and only talked about the markets he knows, Toronto and San Francisco, and second, you're proving his point, London is overcrowded because lots of people want to live there, and there are more people wanting to live there than there are space and accommodation available, that's exactly what he was saying.

[@PWMoze]

I think you are spot on. London and many other historical cities in Europe can not keep expanding without destroying historical, geographical and social assets. Cities like Toronto and Houston are surrounded by empty rural areas. He also ignores the social cost of city expansion as traditional communities are moved out by more afluent incomers lese linked to the area and more likely to be economically less tied to the location. Plus the value of the newly built properties inevitably attracts investors not sustainable locally based economic growth, hence developments alongside the Thames or around Stratford Olympic Park etc are still largely empty having been bought by foreign investment capital not by people who want to live in them and develop lives lived in the local areas. To me its all about who has the wealth, influence and tools to take advantage of demand for more accomodation and what their ultimate objective is. If it is dominated by foreign (Chinese) investment, there is no need to protect communities only to make profit, which is then invested elsewhere. It is happening all over the world (New York, Paris, London even Moscow) at great expense to local culture and community and Prof. Hicks should be aware of that in detail. That is why we don't let a Philosophy Professors plan Housing Policy.

[@ryanbuckley3314]

Great show guys. Thanks for all the videos. When you have Professor Hicks back again, be sure to ask him more about his views on education. That was really interesting.

[@MrGOTAMA420]

i saw prf hicks on your thumbnail. and said YES!

[@CosmicRay111]

Was thinking ... was it around the same time that in talent shows it seemed to become more important that someone had a sick grandma or was a struggling single parent, rather than being talented?

[@AnnabelleJARankin]

When I did a political compass test I came out as on the left and libertarian. However, the visible left of today I have little in common with and feel very 'right' of them.

[@1mimarin]

Same here, apparently I’m like bloody Ghandi and I loathe the contemporary left. They are liberal fascists

[@AnnabelleJARankin]

@@1mimarin Or maybe illiberal fascists!

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@nocount1]

Wonderful guest! Thank you for producing this program. BTW, the quality of the sound, etc. isn't painful at all.

[@castlewindsor5592]

Thank you for optimism!

[@tomburroughes9834]

Prof. Hicks' book, Explaining Postmodernism, is brilliant.

[@seanwayman635]

Agreed. The best introduction to the topic.

[@theodixon3298]

I disagree, if you're open minded enough then I recommend listening to 'A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism"' by CCK Philosophy. Hicks labels a number of philosophers as 'post-modernists' even though they have critiqued post-modernism, misrepresents the history of philosophy and often lacks sources. You don't have to be a post-modernist to believe that Hicks provides a poor account of post-modernism.

[@seanwayman635]

​ @Theo Dixon In truth, Theo, Derrida and Foucault thought the other was a charlatan. Eminent historians have critiqued Foucault's 'archaeologies' as bad history etc. Foucault himself admitted that 1/4 of his writing is complete nonsense because he thought Fremch readers expected it.

[@theodixon3298]

@@seanwayman635 I believe ur referring to John Searle's anecdote about Foucault. He's reported as saying 'In France, u gotta have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep'. I think most people agree this is dumb, and u can definitely critique a lot of French continental philosophy as being pretentious and unintelligible. Searle, the one who reported the anecdote, also said that 'Foucault was often lumped with Derrida. That's very unfair to Foucault. He was a different calibre of thinker altogether'. U should be careful in lumping all these thinkers or their ideas together. I have no problem with attacking post-modernism, but the way Hicks attacks post-modernism is stupid. The original comment I was responding to claimed that Hicks' book is brilliant, if u want to have an accurate understanding on post-modernism then that's not true.

[@seanwayman635]

@@theodixon3298 I watched that video from CCK philosophy. It just struck me as 'true believer' defensiveness.

[@metgirl5429]

Will watch tomorrow morning guys .... with coffee ... ❤️from OZ

[@jccusell]

Good on ya. Used to live down under as a child, grew up there. Still miss you guys lol. Cheers from Holland.

[@zxyatiywariii8]

I envy you, I've always loved your country from afar (plane fare from here is ferocious!) But someday I'm going to visit.

[@graememorrison333]

Shirley it's already tomorrow morning??!

[@metgirl5429]

@@jccusell my parents are from Holland was there a few years ago ... can’t wait to come back and see my family ❤️🤍💙

[@metgirl5429]

Just listening now☕️☕️☕️

[@kingclover1395]

I just realized that something he said is very true. I can remember when I was growing up in the 70s everybody was saying that my generation would be the first not to do as well as the previous generation. That we would not own homes and couldn't afford to have children. And of course we all believed this. And of course it turned out not to be true. And people have been saying this ever since with each new generation. And for some reason I believed it every time even though it never turns out to be correct.

[@a.r.g.3515]

0:24 "Enjoy..." -eardrums death by stoning- Thanks for the content

[@billywayne9039]

You guys can keep a straight face like a champion gambler. Amazing. Thanks. Like you channel.

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Hicks is the unsung adult in the room. In this interview, mostly likely because of the quality of the Triggernometry team and their audience, Dr Hicks provides more a little more detail than usual to his depth of understanding of the 'war on reason'.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@suedavis1781]

Guys!! Please, please please have Chris Hedges as a guest. He's a war journalist and writer on the American political system. He conducted a superb interview with political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin, on America's zeitgeist: "inverted totalitarianism". Fascinating and increasingly relevant!

[@denzelamarus5259]

Brilliant interview!

[@AnnabelleJARankin]

'Four legs good, two legs bad' Animal Farm.

[@mac94312]

'Mask good, orangeman bad' MSM.

[@ulrichenevoldsen8371]

@@mac94312 orange man is if anything one of the pigs who has been gaslighting the other animals and at the end are eating with the humans.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@tommore3263]

Excellent interview. Important interview. We really must help those around us to see what's going on and the violence ahead if we don't stop this authoritarian anti rational neoMarxist takeover of our culture. Well done . I'm passing it on.

[@patrickselden5747]

Excellent conversation as always, gents! Ta very muchly. ☝️😎

[@Caitanyadasa108]

Regarding the last question, John Taylor Gatto pointed out that our regimented school system was chosen specifically to emulate the Prussian system, which was designed to produce obedient soldiers and workers. The cost, of course, is the creativity of individuals, as Stephen mentioned. One can only imagine what would happen in a country where all the children were educated for maximum creativity.

[@brunischling9680]

He is definitely wrong about the reason for the zPrussian school system . I mean he was very glib, and superficial about a number of things. But since he claims professorial status, I would at least expect him to avoid blatant prejudicial statements which amount to cultural defamation.

[@MortenBendiksen]

Racism isn't a problem. Everyone I respect has been called a racist. This is how language work. Racist now means; reasonable person.

[@peterthegreat996]

The SJWs don’t use language to communicate; rather,they use it to manipulate.

[@annie867]

I’ve noticed people accusing each other of “what about ism” to shut down debate.

[@johntowers1213]

its a fairly understandable retort though...when being disabused by someone for an act that the abuser ignores in others...its unsurprising that arguments devolve into such tit for tat exchanges....unhelpful...but understandable.

[@danielschulman4909]

I'd be careful about that . . . I get accused of 'whataboutism' frequently and frankly, its just a way of shutting me down when I am pointing to an important perspective that I feel needs to be inside the dialogue.

[@beksinski]

Sort of like this whole channel?

[@j_freed]

That's called being hostile to nuance and articulation. The Far Left does that all day long, it's authoritarianism.

[@robertlandry5974]

It's a cheap way of dismissing anything you might say

[@unwashedcritic9287]

For economic opportunity, I don't think he could have picked a worse example than movies. It is easier to make them now, but no one wants to pay for them. You can put your movie on KZbin or even Netflix, but don't expect any royalties.

[@David-tt2mt]

Brilliant conversation, maintained up to and including the final piece about education...

[@CurseCreep]

The part of the langueage really stuck with me, especially after having had every neo-marxist dogma forced into my homework-readings, the past 3 semesters of university. Get this man in a room with Judith Butler, and we´d have had an end to this whole sordid wokeism on the fly

[@boxeriain]

Great guy! Can't wait to see it. Read almost all of his work ❤️

[@harveyyoung3423]

on the very last point i recall one of my students, way back in those Helsion days pre 2008, saying that in A level Philosophy the students had not reasoned to a particular position on some philosophical issue like utilitarianism or deontology in ethics but rather just adopted the particular position that was on offer that best fitted what they already believed prior to the course. c.f. F.H. Bradley "metaphysics are the finding of bad reasons for what we believe on instinct". the right think pluralism but individual right utility, the left diversity but left utility equality of the whole. so both sides dot split rights and goods on one side or the other but offer different views of the right and the good. Thanks for a great talk guys.

[@isellcuddlesessions66]

Great interview. Thanks.

[@tirakindler1]

Greetings from Florida, the freest state in the USA. I'm forty this year, twenty two years of adulting under my belt and this interview was very helpful in terms of understanding what motives this horrific insurgence of identity politics. I'm surprised he didn't address critical theory specifically but that's ok, this "Postmodernism" is a bit of a take on it. Thank you for these discussions.

[@Entertainment-jv8xw]

the embedded ads are so jarring when focusing on a deep discussion.

[@sheveka]

I know what you mean but how else are they supposed to make a living? It costs time (which is money) to organise something like this and host an interview. When you live in a world that uses money, you need to get paid when you provide something of value - a service or a product.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Very refreshing. Thank you to all three fine gentlemen here.

[@offshoretomorrow3346]

Calm, rational and crystal clear. Thankyou, Stephen.

[@sulawesi-steve]

I could destroy so many people I know with the facts and logic in this here gold mine.

[@just_another32]

Please don't destroy anyone. Be kind.

[@billsimms2511]

@@just_another32 no, you have to fight at their level. They will do anything to spread their ideas. We must do the same to shut their ideas down. If you play nice, you will lose

[@anitamaguire7640]

They are "Demons " facts and logic doesn't apply, only violence :(

[@samlewis9452]

And yet you don't. But if it makes you feel better I'm sure you have a very big brain.

[@zeigbert1743]

The stupid are impervious to facts and logic.

[@just_another32]

Is it just me or is his mouth not moving...

[@j_freed]

Peoples mouths moving while they talk is not an actual reality, it's a social construct.

[@Ahabite]

The mouths of Canadians don't normally move when they speak. I've heard they only do it to make everyone else comfortable.

[@releesadopamine9810]

It's deffo you because I've just had to replay with 4k Sirius XM zoom lens and those lips are moving even when change from Canadian to English translation on mute they be moving ..but it might just be your floppy disk reconnection out of sync.🤷🏻‍♀️

[@Ahabite]

@@releesadopamine9810 This is legit. I hadn't considered this. Thanks!

[@releesadopamine9810]

@@Ahabite 😜

[@cakakic1988]

Excellent conversation.

[@patrickselden5747]

Yet another fascinating interview! Ta very muchly, gents... ☝️😎

[@outofbluepills]

I knew that Hicks was a clear, articulate, intellectually-honest thinker, but after hearing that episode, I have the same kind of awe for his abilities that I've come to have for James Lindsay. Indispensable.

[@donovan665]

Yup schooling, I agree that we need to update education.

[@Mrlimabean01]

Terrifying to think the other guys feel the same way... 1619 project is just the beginning

[@europeansovietunion7372]

However he emphasized only the bad in schooling, and in the worse way. We could also argue that studying the exact same things brings cohesion, so the people all share the same knowledge, have the same references, which help to unify a country and create a nation. Especially when that country is a multicultural mess like the US...

[@anitamaguire7640]

Privately educate, or homeschool, worked for Britain and the world until 1870?

[@donovan665]

What I thought was interesting in what he said was that up to a certain age play is a big part of early learning. That play is the best way to learn, that neurological research shows strong emotions encode learning. He said why do we then torture them with rote standardised nonsense.

[@anitamaguire7640]

@Mommyhustlesharder I recently read a lot about the two world wars and was shocked to discover that this tactic does not just date to the 1980s but has been going on for over a century.

[@seamusmcinerney4168]

Oh how i needed that.

[@scytale6]

brilliant guest

[@unitedwithin4004]

I recommend the Eric Weinstein/ Glenn Beck interview. (By the way, tyranny by any other name smells just as stinky.)

[@savvybookreader857]

When did Glen Beck became a good guy? This guy Glen promoted the Obama birtherism bullshit on Fox for 2 years before he overexposed himself. 🤔 🙄

[@lessevdoolbretsim]

I like the Ren & Stimpy-esque framing.

[@carolynbrightfield8911]

@@savvybookreader857 I don't think that it was necessarily implied that Glen Beck became/is a "good guy". Eric Weinstein refused Beck's offer of an interview until after/close to (?) the inaugration. Weinstein is appealing to the Right (imo) through Beck's access to them because he (Weinstein) believes we are now in dire circumstances (the return of nuclear threat). Weinstein dominates the conversation imo. He speaks very quickly, but well worth listening to.

[@savvybookreader857]

@@carolynbrightfield8911 Weinstein is a idiotic alarmist who craves attention. 🤔 🙄

[@ulrichenevoldsen8371]

Lol Glenn beck 🤣 I remember him acting on fox. What a tool

[@surajitgoswami1871]

What a great interview. Thank you Prof. Hicks.

[@rodneydowney2561]

According to Hicks' definition of postmodernism, its logical conclusion (and he clearly implies this if not outright says it) is a return to premodern authoritarianism based solely on the exercise of power and coercion. So his "definition" is an indictment of postmodernism, even if he doesn't call it that, and therefore an implied argument FOR the principles and assumptions of modernism.

[@sandermalschaert2336]

If you say this young generation is richer than the boomers there is nothing you can say any more that I won't receive with healthy skepticism. Dr Hicks may know his philosophical history but is very much an ideologue himself.

[@LetsGo6009]

This young generation has a super computer in the palm of their hand that can access virtually all the knowledge of humanity at the stroke of a button. What will it be in 2 more generations? How is this not wealth?

[@sandermalschaert2336]

You and the interviewers themselves seem te have forgotten that they had a guest that explained very well indeed that while ofc this is true the intergenerational wealth gap is huge. They talk about home ownership, job security, the possibility of having a family &c. All in sharp decline so the boomers can wallow in luxury. Go ahead check out the trigernimetry catalogue.

[@samlewis9452]

It's a pity that everybody is down on Foucault. Given that we're in a national lockdown (UK) where the State is treating all citizens as patients, Foucault's insights into the power relations between doctor and patient may prove to be interesting to those who value freedom. Then again in this culture war Foucault has been written off, in these comments, as a philistine and a murderer. Interesting to note that the Left hasn't said much on this either showing that there is not a one-to-one relationship between Post Modernism and the Left (or to use that silly term Cultural Marxism). In this war the only casualty is your own intellectual development.

[@shyman3000]

Best comment. Thank you!!!

[@liberality]

People are down on Foucault because he was exposed decades ago, along with Derrida, as supporting the right of adults to have sex with children. Hard to come back from that.

[@shyman3000]

@@liberality 20th century fascism: burn the books. 21st century fascism: accuse the authors of pedophilia. Got it.

[@liberality]

@@shyman3000 Have you read Foucault's accounts of the Charles Jouy case? Have you read the letters that both Foucault and Derrida signed in support of freeing men convicted of sexual abuse of children? It's not an accusation, it's documented fact.

[@liberality]

@@shyman3000 Also, you have no clue what fascism is.

[@markday1341]

It's natures way of getting us back into smaller groups

[@anitamaguire7640]

During peak covid BS hubby and I moved across a continent by car, if we were going to all die, why not with loved ones? Now we live in the most rural town. Hubby got work straight away. The other day I realized we were the Roman's who left a dying Rome to move to a village in Gaul.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@rodrigodiaz9340]

I must say in the USA it's very important to note that both the left and the right are postmodern. That the left tends to carry the stigma , but the rights antinintellectualism and literal interpretation of biblical and romanticized tradition is also a way to take away from individualism. Nationalism is also a reCti9n to post modernsim

[@trashman1358]

Awesome interview boys, spot on!

[@reahthorolund8373]

Damn that was brilliant. Mr Hicks cleared up some confusing stuff, I should get his book!

[@j_freed]

37 Postmoderns who don't believe in value paradigms still hit the Dislike button.

[@RightTurnClyde]

Postmodernism is like the Emperor's New Clothes of our era kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKe8gaOCfa5-bck

[@anetapuzewicz]

Woow that actually was quite nice. Positive outlook on all that chaos but same time not ignorant of issues that came with it. Good guest.

[@helenachase5627]

Great guys ! I mostly listen anyway.

[@anaglyphx]

I love this man's mind.

[@ThePaulmaxey]

People like Hicks, Murray and Peterson are visionaries and messengers, more people need to listen and learn how to be independent thinkers.

[@bradstokes7061]

His answer on real estate was bang on.

[@mattwhite2295]

This was brilliant 👏