Stephen Hicks on The Nietzsche Podcast

Рет қаралды 8,969

2 ай бұрын

Patreon: / untimelyreflections
Untimely Reflections #28: Stephen Hicks - Is Nietzsche a Postmodernist?
Center for Ethics & Entrepreneurship YT Channel: / @ceechannel
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher, and the author of numerous books, including Understanding Postmodernism, and Nietzsche & the Nazis. As Professor Hicks is a critic of postmodernism, I decided to ask him about Nietzsche's connection to postmodern thought. We discussed chapter one of Beyond Good and Evil. Is Nietzsche a postmodernist, and to what extent did he influence them? How do we explain the moral differences between Nietzsche and the postmodernists? We also discussed some topics related to objectivism and Ayn Rand. How does Nietzsche's epistemology and ethics differ from that of Ayn Rand? Professor Hicks articulates the case for the foundationalist view, and we finished the conversation by discussing the state of the academy as he sees it, and the future of philosophy.
#philosophy #philosophypodcast #nietzsche #postmodernism #aynrand #individualism

Пікірлер: 184

@sincular09 2 ай бұрын

Insane that you got this guy on the show

@austinmackell9286 2 ай бұрын

Not that crazy. Seems like the kind of thing that happens.

@virtue_signal_ 2 ай бұрын

It happened because God wanted it to;)

@darillus1 2 ай бұрын

yes, totally insane that you would let this grandiose guy on you channel!😂

@TheHerrUlf Ай бұрын

@@virtue_signal_ God is dead...

@virtue_signal_ Ай бұрын

@@TheHerrUlf and we have killed him...

@SisyphusFlesh 2 ай бұрын

Man , this high-quality philosophy dialog is what the world needs right now. Thanks alot

@s2a1ha1j2a 2 ай бұрын

Dr. Hick's is a blessing for us curious dummies . . . thanks for the work.

@jasonmitchell5219 2 ай бұрын

Very enjoyable. Hick's is at his best, whether you agree with his conclusions or not, when he takes his foot off the culture wars issues. Those were some great questions you flung at him and I think he was both surprised and delighted at the calibre too.

@TheMauerbauer 2 ай бұрын

there is a great video by honas ceika about all of hicks misunderstandings on postmodernism

@gingerbreadzak 2 ай бұрын

00:00 🎙 Stephen Hicks recounts his academic journey and interest in Nietzsche, starting from undergraduate education to becoming a philosophy professor. 02:13 🤔 Nietzsche's chapter in "Beyond Good and Evil" challenges the traditional notion of philosophy, emphasizing drives over the pursuit of truth. 05:33 🧠 Nietzsche critiques the traditional concept of truth, asserting that it's driven by deeper instincts rather than rationality. 10:23 💭 Postmodernism draws from Nietzschean epistemology but diverges in social and value philosophies, emphasizing leftist ideals while Nietzsche leans towards a more right-wing perspective. 14:39 🔄 Postmodernism combines Nietzsche's epistemology with Marx and Rousseau's social philosophy, forming a complex amalgam of relativism and leftist values. 19:22 ❓ Nietzsche's critique challenges the modernist notion of objective truth, posing a dilemma for philosophers whether to accept postmodernism or engage with Nietzsche's critique to salvage modernist thought. 22:17 🔍 Human beings develop abstract concepts through sensory experiences and linguistic abilities. 23:49 🌎 Constructing theories involves integrating multiple sentences into narratives, such as understanding the water cycle. 24:16 🧠 Modern philosophy aims to understand sensation, abstraction, proposition formation, storytelling, and theory construction. 25:12 📚 Objectivity in perception, abstraction, logic, and grammar is debated between objective and subjective philosophers. 26:55 🤔 There's a tension between seeking truth and imposing will in philosophical arguments, as highlighted by Nietzsche. 28:03 💡 Maintaining commitment to truth in a social context requires understanding social psychology and overcoming biases. 30:56 🧠 Developing internal heuristics helps individuals overcome biases and incorporate new data into their understanding. 32:30 🤝 Social obstacles, such as defensiveness and reputation concerns, can hinder the pursuit of truth in social contexts. 34:19 🎭 Nietzsche and Rand diverge fundamentally in their views on agency and individual responsibility, shaping their value theories differently. 38:32 🔍 Nietzsche's celebration of exceptional individuals contrasts with his skepticism about agency and individual responsibility for the majority. 44:38 🧬 Nietzsche's concept of the "Overman" involves elevating the human species towards evolution, emphasizing collective improvement rather than individualistic values. 46:24 💭 Nietzsche's philosophy contrasts with individualism, as he views individuals as means to an end for the improvement of the species rather than ends in themselves. 48:27 🌟 The discussion delves into the nature vs. nurture debate, exploring whether exceptional individuals like Steve Jobs are born with innate qualities or shaped by upbringing and circumstances. 51:14 🧠 The conversation extends to whether differences in innate abilities should affect moral philosophy, with the conclusion that moral principles should apply equally regardless of individual capabilities. 55:42 🌍 The discourse shifts to the state of cultural dialogue between modernity and postmodernity, noting a resurgence of engagement and debate within academia, signaling a pushback against postmodern dominance.

@iakona23 Ай бұрын

Thank you very much for these Timestamps!

@aslamtu 13 күн бұрын

Great participation by both.

@almodovar251 2 ай бұрын

Good stuff very informative. Thanks for sharing, I love philosophy and the divergence of opinions!

@gorgonzolabarolo1235 2 ай бұрын

excellent stuff. excellent guest. didn`t want it to end

@johnbrown4568 2 ай бұрын

Dr. Hicks once again presents a well thought out and detailed exposition of the matters herein discussed. As with all philosophical assessments and positions, some will agree and others will disagree. Thank you for posting this wonderful interview.

@anthonycbash 19 күн бұрын

Excellent, excellent discussion all the way to the very last question and answer!

@prashnaphuyal4104 2 ай бұрын

Finally, catching up , it was a long journey for me , tq vvvvv much for your dedication 🙏 👏 🙌

@kebabfoto 2 ай бұрын

Wow damn, didn't expect to see this. Hoping for a good convo here 👍👍 this is awesome for the podcast, hope it boosts you in the algorithm

@johnnyjamz6372 2 ай бұрын

Putting Essential Stephen Hicks Salts on my cereal this morning

@cheri238 2 ай бұрын

Rick Roderick was excellent. It is great to read and listen to different professors and make arguments. May I also suggest that you may ask Dr. Lewis Gordon and his books and lectures on your show. I am reading now by Franz Omar Fannon books, two at the moment, "The Wretched Earth," "Black Skin & White Masks." Thank you for having Professor Steven Hicks on, I will listen. Steve Jobs was using the left side of his brain, as most in the business world, banks, even politicians. Suggested readings: by Iian McGilchrist, a psychiatrist, researcher, philosopher and literary scholar from the "Isle of Sky," "The Master and His Emissary," The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, "The Matter With Things," Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World, 2 volumes with 1500 pages with notes. Thank you both for this discussion today. Great topic.

@kakistocracyusa Ай бұрын

Nietzsche would have despised this guy's post-modernist hand-waving, combined with such Cliff's Notes -level literalist reading of his own work plus namedropping..

@bodhiprice 2 ай бұрын

Wow, this was such a good conversation. Thank you so much.

@CameronBachmeier-ei9zg 2 ай бұрын

Thanks for asking the question regarding and equating the human desire or need "to be right" while pursuing the "truth" with the will to power. I have been thinking about this for a long time. But I must say I did not finds Hick's response that "we" need to transcend the impediments to deriving an objective truth: defensiveness, anger, etc. I hope in following podcast you will follow up on your very wise question. I think Hick's answer was short shrift.

@gilbertgonzales915 2 ай бұрын

Took time but now i am allin with Stephen hicks

@StockpileThomas1 2 ай бұрын

Great!

@exlauslegale8534 Ай бұрын

Nietzsche would have been appalled by Hicks.

@maryhaddock9145 9 күн бұрын

Why?

@exlauslegale8534 8 күн бұрын

@@maryhaddock9145 in short, because Nietzsche would count Hicks, since H. is a rigid conservative (living a reactive life), among the "last men".

@maryhaddock9145 8 күн бұрын

@@exlauslegale8534 but, as one of the herd rather than be appalled, surely?

@exlauslegale8534 8 күн бұрын

@@maryhaddock9145 Not as one of the herd, but as a priest.

@S2Cents Ай бұрын

It would be great for your listerners if you do a response at some point discussing your agreements and disagreements and questions w and for Hicks IMO, cheers

@Pikeypaige Ай бұрын

I really enjoy this channel and your lectures are world-class. I do not mean to hurtful to Professor Hicks but in the intro where you explain who he is and he goes “mmm……mmmm….yeah.” It sounds like you just dropped something profound on him that requires deep, deep thought. I just thought it was funny and was wondering if anyone else thinks the same. Lolol

@-Dekeita- 2 ай бұрын

The heart of the difference between Neitzche and the post moderns is that, even though he doesn't articulate it well, Neitzche maintained and valued a complex connection to the real world and therefor empiricism and life. And the post moderns want to put rationalism and the will to power as above empiricism. Empiricism in their view is itself beholden to the will of the observer. And thereby they take the denial of life further then ever.

@robertb1138 2 ай бұрын

I'm not too sure that Nietzsche was such a great friend to empiricism. If anything he seems to have thought that too much of that was a problem. If anything this is the essential link between Nietzsche and his postmodern followers. They differ in terms of their goals and morality more than epistemologically. But I do not think post-moderns are anti-science. They are just anti-scientism as an all-encompassing explanation of everything.

@-Dekeita- 2 ай бұрын

@@robertb1138 not a great friend. But a better one then Postmoderns. He's complicated and struggles with it. And the Postmoderns just strip out the complexity of it. And hone in on just will to power.

@markoslavicek 2 ай бұрын

When you talk about the Postmodernists who want to do this, whom are you talking about exactly? And could you reference any works of theirs in which they claim this?

@-Dekeita- 2 ай бұрын

@@markoslavicek Thomas Kuhn is the most famous example

@markoslavicek Ай бұрын

@@-Dekeita- Not sure if he's a good example for a postmodernist at all, let alone 'the most famous one', but okay. If it sounds to you that I'm not convinced about this distinction between Nietzsche's view on empiricism/rationalism and that of the postmodernists, you are right. It would be a stretch to say that postmodernists claim anything particular in that regard. They merely question how these things operate (just like Nietzsche, after all).

@asmanic8727 2 ай бұрын

Awesome

@kakistocracyusa Ай бұрын

This guy sounds like he's been teaching freshman philosophy to sorority girls for the last 25 years.

@coe8jc 2 ай бұрын

Is it true? That optimism eventually leads to scepticism

@shaunkerr8721 2 ай бұрын

I'm skeptical of the claim yet optimistic it's true...

@AquariusGate 2 ай бұрын

No, not at all from my own experience. Optimism leads to learning, a way of reading our intuitions and matching what we imagine, with what is happening. Either way, it seems an outlook effect. Do we learn faster and more truly about the world by holding our doubts in mind? Are we wiser, learning to cope with setbacks and discovering ways or remaining buoyant?

@Wingedmagician 2 ай бұрын

this was “enlightening”, should be a regular. just maybe be careful not to cover old ground too much. and actually develop these points. loved it

@Phishiesmels 2 ай бұрын

Life, turned against itself.

@larceon5059 2 ай бұрын

Have yet to watch but I hope Hicks has progressed since Explaining postmodernism, it was quite a book😭

@Bestmann3n 2 ай бұрын

He's not worth your time

@tigernmas5796 2 ай бұрын

Why does an individual have to be a rational agent? Could not, for instance, a living body be an individual? Does his argument of Nietzschean collectivism make sense if you think about what Nietzsche said about rationality?

@cb73 25 күн бұрын

Doesn’t the disagreement between Rand and Nietzsche really just come down to freewill vs determinism?

@floydgb1 2 ай бұрын

1 in 10million, but there are 10million creative domains

@robertb1138 2 ай бұрын

How does one get from Nietzsche, through existentialism, phenomenology and postmodernism and somehow to Ayn Rand? That seems about as fitting as putting peanut butter in the engine instead of oil. She's a mess. I just can't take that seriously. And I've read most of what Rand has produced, so its not like I didn't really look at it.

@user-jr5vy2bg5q 2 ай бұрын

Randianism is just Nietzshceanism for the masses.

@Bilboswaggins2077 2 ай бұрын

No fucking way lol. Props to you for having literally anyone on here tbh

@africanzungu7350 2 ай бұрын

Only know Hicks from his atrocious takes on Post-Modernism but excited to see how this dialogue plays out

@GarrettTravers 2 ай бұрын

Dude, clicked on this the moment it popped up.

@AquariusGate 2 ай бұрын

Aren't morals excuses or apologies for an inability to value evenly, and even fairly? What if the premise of thought and thinking is that it does no good?

@James-ll3jb 2 ай бұрын

A Review of Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks Matt McManus .....Finally, in Chapter Six, Hicks turns to postmodernism, to which he dedicates only twenty-six scant pages. He argues that the scientific aspirations of earlier methodological collectivists, committed to a politics of emancipating victims, collapsed when it became apparent that liberal capitalism was both here to stay and was delivering a superior quality of life. As a result, postmodern thinkers looked to the skeptical metaphysics and epistemology developed by Kant and Heidegger, in order to defend their political positions without having to appeal to reason. According to Hicks, this resulted in the strange internal contradictions of postmodern strategy and rhetoric, embodied in such claims as all truth is relative but postmodernism tells it like it really is and values are subjective-but sexism and racism are really evil. There is some truth in this. Activists and militants do deploy such contradictions in support of their political positions. Moreover, these activists often appeal to postmodern authors to justify their ideas. But the point isn’t whether this is characteristic of the activists who interpret postmodern authors, but whether these contradictions are latent in the writings of the authors whom Hicks claims are exemplars of the tradition: authors like Rorty, Lyotard, Derrida and Foucault. Here he is on very shaky ground. There are very few citations in the chapter-and, of the few there are, many reference nineteenth-century authors like Nietzsche; modern authors who do not fit into the postmodern tradition, such as the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin; and critics such as Thomas Sokal. None of these figures is representative of postmodernism. Hicks’ most substantial engagement with postmodern occurs at the end of the book, where he argues that Foucault and Derrida wanted to bring about the “end of man,” citing The Order of Things, in which Foucault claims that man will be “erased like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea,” and citing a passage from Derrida which talks about bringing about “the terrifying form of a monstrosity.” But neither of these two quotations are interpreted correctly. In The Order of Things, Foucault argues that the concept of universal man is a relatively new way of conceptualizing human beings, and will eventually give way to a new conceptualization. In Writing and Différance, Derrida argues that recognizing difference, including differences between individuals, is frightening, but we must develop an ethos which allows us to accept it. The caliber of Hicks’ engagement with these two authors here is representative of the general lack of intellectual charity and careful scholarship he demonstrates towards his ideological opponents. Conclusion There are many important criticisms one could make of postmodern authors. Moreover, there is a good book to be written about the association of postmodern thinking with identity politics, growing skepticism about free speech and other social trends. Outlets like Areo have made important contributions to this effort. Unfortunately Hicks’ book isn’t up to the task. He raises some valuable criticisms of left-wing activism and its strategic appeals to postmodern rhetoric. But, as an intellectual guide to the development of postmodernism, or a primer on contemporary left-wing thought, it falls short of what is required.

@untimelyreflections 2 ай бұрын

Tbh man, I think if Matt McManus listened to this conversation all the way through and dispassionately evaluated what Hicks is saying here, from what I know about McManus he’d probably agree with Hicks.

@xenoblad 2 ай бұрын

@untimelyreflections what stopped McManus from agreeing with Hicks when reading his book that doesn't exist in your video? Not trying to argue here. I'm genuinely curious.

@James-ll3jb 2 ай бұрын

@@xenoblad It's not my video

@James-ll3jb 2 ай бұрын

@@untimelyreflections Maybe. Possibly Hicks has altered his appraisal of various antiheroes of western thought.

@xenoblad 2 ай бұрын

@@James-ll3jb I was trying to ask UntimelyReflections, but the @ feature didn't work. I agree with your post. I'm just tired of post modernism being used as a boogeyman to knock away discussion on any issue to the left of Regan.

@virtue_signal_ 2 ай бұрын

Neecha not Nietzsche eee

@jichaelmorgan3796 2 ай бұрын

Nee-cheh he's German

@battragon 2 ай бұрын

Sounds like Nietzsche never read "Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein ^^

@simritnam612 2 ай бұрын

@11:00, in terms of Power, Nietzsche as a raised Christian who rejected Christianity; he objects to and inverts Paul's statement ie "my weakness is God's strength." Neitzsche can only be thoroughly understood by examining his theological upbringing as the negative of his positive philosophy if you want to call it that.

@allenandrews2380 2 ай бұрын

Good insight. He himself even validates that when he says" one must have almost succumbed to it himself" loose quote in reference to the temptations Christianity offers.

@kalervolatoniittu2011 2 ай бұрын

Old Fritz just keeps on givin' 😄

@kalervolatoniittu2011 2 ай бұрын

Some stuff is lost in translation

@ReflectiveJourney 2 ай бұрын

Meta modernism is the synthesis here which is just the good old pragmatism imo.

@markoslavicek 2 ай бұрын

You know how Plastic Pills once said: meta-modernism is just a word 😁

@ReflectiveJourney 2 ай бұрын

@@markoslavicek that would be the perspective of Semantic reduction. Meta modernism is post linguistic turn so that critique is already accounted for.

@Anhedonxia 2 ай бұрын

If hinges on some grand narrative like modernism... Then it's already dead

@markoslavicek 2 ай бұрын

@@ReflectiveJourney Could be in theory, but Pills's point is that meta-modernism is a flawed concept, hence he says 'it's just a word', meaning it doesn't contribute anything new that one couldn't already find in postmodernism. In a way, it is a reaction to postmodernism and a turn back to modernism, nothing 'meta' about it. Pills isn't reducing it to anything, he dismisses it altogether.

@sre9637 2 ай бұрын

Oh Lordie! North american philosophers have a hard time reading and interpreting Nietzsche and posmodernism. He really didn't know what he was saying, coming with labels no one ever used and that are nor useful at all if one wants to understand the so called "posmodernism" thinkers

@alexanderleuchte5132 2 ай бұрын

I scipped thrpugh a lecture of him once during that weird coincidence of me "discovering" Jordan Peterson a few years before he had his breakthrouh with the "bill 16" drama. It was so weird seeing this undergrade professor who has very weird ideas of Nietzsche and the 3rd Reich i was laughing about becoming "the intellectual we deserve". What i would recommend from back then looking for Nietzsche content is the playlists: "Rick Roderick: Nietzsche and the Postmodern Condition"

@Dino_Medici 25 күн бұрын

Nietzsche: Anti individualism individualist non collectivist collectivist

@villevanttinen908 2 ай бұрын

In my experience Nietzsche is right for vast majority of people, they are only interested in themselves, and they don´t care as long as they are on top of the (own) things. And most people are afraid of death, which always make you average, timid, content and lazy. Nietzsches question: What have you done in order to overcome? because man is something than must be overcome.

@simritnam612 2 ай бұрын

"what" puts Nietzsche on "the right" (outdated and stultifying distinction) is Disgust

@sunflare8798 Ай бұрын

This is the worst Philosophy PhD I've ever listened to. Bring professor Moeller (Carefree Wandering) if you want a good discussion with a real expert on Nietzsche and german philosophy

@untimelyreflections Ай бұрын

I actually already talked to Professor Moeller.

@James-ll3jb 2 ай бұрын

Prof. Hicks still hasn't answered my questions snd falsely claimed I never asked them.

@sethgaston8347 2 ай бұрын

Ah yes, the man with a great understanding of Nietzsche yet a horrible understanding of Post Modernist philosophy. Seriously he’s misquoted leftist constantly

@ryanbarrios7933 2 ай бұрын

Just posing the question, what would you say was inaccurate in his descriptions of postmodernism?

@kebabfoto 2 ай бұрын

@@ryanbarrios7933 I think Steven laid it out very well in a clear and concise way but I still think that if I look around me everywhere people seem to be very oblivious to their biases, there always something in it for them to believe what they believe and that seems to be the case for most people, if not all seem to be affected by this to varying degrees. It's not a conincidence that most skinny and pale vegans and their professor believes in a certain way of structuring society while the tall handsome economics guy seem to have an opinion antithetical to theirs. Is there a right answer to their grievences? It's hard to say but it's not hard to say that there seems to be a bias in them atleast to some degree. Not hating on vegans here btw but it's a stereotype for a reason. I think we see this all over youtube and in our political discussions on mainstream TV, the discussion get's lost in what people want to be true and even the smartest among us will look back in a couple of years and see how reality proved them wrong atleast about something that they were passionate about and truly believed in. Before I encountered this channel I had very little self awareness. I must say that I have improved a lot in my honesty and my self reflection, to a very hurtful degree a lot of the things I used to take for granted are being reevaluated by myself and brought to a new light within me. It makes me more understanding and willing to look at others perspectives.

@kebabfoto 2 ай бұрын

@@ryanbarrios7933 Am I missing something? Sincere question

@markoslavicek 2 ай бұрын

@@ryanbarrios7933 For me, the problem lies mainly in common association of postmodernism with Marxism. Postmodernism is _not_ modernism, and Marxism _is_ a modernist philosophy.

@James-ll3jb 2 ай бұрын

Hicks is so wrong about so much its hard to know where to begin. Peterson still parrots his errors. Failure to recognize Kant as an Enlightenment figure was a classic!

@kalervolatoniittu2011 2 ай бұрын

Peterson's an ass 🥸

@widowsson8192 2 ай бұрын

Whats he wrong about? Not calling kant an enlightenment figure?

@MrClockw3rk 2 ай бұрын

Try to begin

@nicholasmacdonald1 2 ай бұрын

Yes. It shocked me that he didn’t even state which philosopher first stated that men were ends in of themselves- Kant!

@jcavs9847 2 ай бұрын

he also wrote thar Nietzsche was a "collectivist" in his Nietzsche and the Nazis book. What???

@fuanon3441 2 ай бұрын

love the podcast but c'mon a Nietzschean podcast implying steve jobs has possible Uber mensch status... oh the irony

@untimelyreflections 2 ай бұрын

I didn’t say that, calm down. The point was not to imply Steve Jobs is a higher man. Its a readily-at-hand example of a name everyone knows, of a guy who worked his ass off. That’s it. That doesn’t make him an ubermensch. It makes him a guy who worked his ass off.

@fuanon3441 2 ай бұрын

@@untimelyreflections you gave him as an example ofs someone who stands out someone so special they were one in ten million(?). I get that it was just an example chosen on the fly but it's ironic you choose as an example of an exemplary man, some one who FN would have despised . that was my only quibble! good Convo though thank you for it and thank you for all your great work with this series I really love it and you have a great speaking voice so wonderful to listen to. so thank you again you are a boon to humanity and a treasure

@H.C.J. 2 ай бұрын

Hope this guy grew since his awful “explaining postmodernism” book.

@env0x 2 ай бұрын

I was arguing with him in the youtube comments about that "book" of his just a few months ago lol.

@markoslavicek 2 ай бұрын

14:25 'Postmodernism in its social philosophy and in its value theory is Marxist' So, he didn't.

@env0x 2 ай бұрын

@@markoslavicek i was criticizing him for not putting any citations in the book and he got mad at me saying "it's not his job to do my homework for me"

@Animalis_Mundana 2 ай бұрын

@@markoslavicek anything associated with socialism/communism/Marxism has always been stigmatized in America so they want to distance themselves from those labels and call it anything else but it. They use newspeak to beat around the bush to make it sound positive, even different. Postmodernism aligns perfectly with critical theory, Frankfurt school and Fabian London school of economics. When did the cultural revolution begin? Post world war 2 maybe? What's the point of postmodernism, what are the results? More social stability? Or maybe "social change", "social justice"? What is "woke" or "social justice warrior" anything but "class or gender consciousness", why has identity politics become so prevalent? Why has the left become "the new left" making a hard left on the political spectrum from the moderates before ? The culture wars began in the 1950s-60s for liberation and social change, even feminism has morphed way past its original intent. Postmodernism has devastated American culture, the point of critical theory. "Postmodernism relies on critical theory, which considers the effects of ideology, society, and history on culture. "Postmodernism relies on critical theory, which considers the effects of ideology, society, and history on culture Postmodernism and critical theory commonly criticize universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress." Who are the fathers of critical theory, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno, and of course baudrillard and deBord are well known Marxist thinkers of postmodernism. "The New left" was created by socialist like gramsci, Lukacs, habermas. Social critical theory is neo-marxist, quite a change from classical Marxist theory just a change in tactics to undermine the institutions of western civilization, basically a culture war. But of course, postmodernism has nothing to do with Marxist theories, none of them ever had anything to do with its early formulation and foundation. Critical theory from "institute for social research" had nothing to do with it. Can we talk about Saul alinskys influence on political activism? Postmodernism has successfully swept the traditions of western civilization and now we are crumbling, the real concern isn't even Marxism or communism but liberal internationalism, a close 18th century relative of international socialism. Any wonder why a socialist leader sits at the UN as its secretary general? Or why Wilson (wilsonianism) was sympathetic to socialism? Both [Antonio] Gramsci and [Rudi] Dutschke argued that radical social change in highly developed societies would be the result of long, patient organising inside and outside of key institutions, and not simply or primarily a quick, frontal assault through mass actions. This is Dutschke’s long march through the institutions, what Gramsci called the “war of position…” Carl Davidson To “deconstruct” something is as significant in academia as “constructing” things is in the rest of society. Indeed, it is one curiosity of academia in recent decades that it has found almost nothing it does not wish to deconstruct, apart from itself. Douglas Murray

@Animalis_Mundana 2 ай бұрын

@Jonathan-jk7of Ай бұрын

Why would you even invite a dishonest person like him on this channel. He clearly doesn’t understand Nietzsche and misinterpreted his philosophy calling him nazi.

@H.C.J. 2 ай бұрын

In case anyone is wondering this video explains why his take on postmodernism is not very insightful and why we highly distrust this guy to write books kzbin.info/www/bejne/e3nXp4d9lrWtfJYsi=W58Fev2h4vrkKTrH