Postmodernism: WTF? An introduction to Postmodernist Theory | Tom Nicholas

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Hi all! First off, thanks for watching, I hope you found the video engaging and informative in some way in spite of the atrocious sound etc! If you'd like to support me to make more videos like this (but better!) then I've just launched a Patreon. I'd really appreciate you checking it out and would be very grateful for your support! You can check it out here: www.patreon.com/tomnicholas

[@alexanderpalmer3496]

your a great help to struggling students :)

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Cheers for saying so Alexander!

[@petepoli50]

Considering the Bill Clinton and Hillary together formed the first postmodern Presidency I appreciate the irony in the fact that Hillary may have been out-PoMo'd by Donald Trump

[@richgirod1133]

great stuff....can you provide a video explaining covfefe-thanks[

[@aishwariyasweety2433]

@@alexanderpalmer3496 just out of curiosity what do you study

[@bellaheisler3725]

i paused to like this video when you said "vague net positive to society." that's all i really wanna be in life.

[@channelname1019]

The moment that he said that, in my viewing/listening, coincided with me reading your comment, so I made sure to do the same.

[@kindlerashod]

He sounded so genuine. Maybe I'm lured to his accent.

[@domedin9894]

You won't be let down but dream big dude.

[@jmarsh5485]

@@channelname1019 it seems to happen alot on KZbin so I wonder whether it's built into the app experience where words thaat appear on the wall correlate with the video running and the script it contains

[@channelname1019]

@@jmarsh5485 They couldn't.. I .. They.. No. But.. Hmmmm... That's.... actually not so far fetched... Which means they almost certainly fucking are doing exactly that, the dirty fuckers.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Awwwwwwwwful audio here for which I can only apologise! Maybe we can pretend this was an intentional postmodern attempt to draw your attention to the representative medium?

[@Harry-nl3ic]

Nah mate your audio is just shit

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Yeah, fair enough.

[@OBear07]

it’s good of you to put the effort in, who would complain? another great video, imho.

[@PinesProductions]

As an audio engineer, I find it unbearable. However, this is good content my dude 👍🏻

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, it's all made a thousand times worse by the fact that, in a former life, I spent two years studying audio engineering...

[@sarahelisabethmixon795]

My contemporary theatre professor is in his 70's and doesn't know how to Zoom me into class so sends me incoherent notes on the subject instead...this quite literally saved my life.

[@DarienSmartt]

Thank you so much for making this video. I just started a university course on Postmodernism from CS Lewis Through the Present, and my professor felt that the best was to start this course was to have us read 8 essays on postmodernism, spanning over 100 pages. Your description of text on postmodernism being "inaccessible" was right on the money. I'm usually great in my English courses, but I've been hitting a wall with understanding even the foundations of postmodernism. The information in your video gave me some groundwork to start from, so I don't feel so completely lost reading this week's 100 pages of essays. Thank you again!

[@Snapslol]

I came to find out what post-modernism is I still don't know what post-modernism is

[@steveanston4906]

I agree - I was looking for a 'nutshell' or blagger's explanation to impress my friends.

[@sabahfatema]

@@steveanston4906 That ain't postmodernism

[@MrWackywilson]

@@steveanston4906 if u work it out bro... Let a bro know haha.... Cos I'm feeling pretty stupid

[@chezlolxo]

Enlightenment it is a very hard term to define. But if I had to condense it very much I would say that postmodernism is a complete rejection of universal or totalising conception of truth and ultimately reason, even those of emancipatory ideals Frederic Jameson in ‘postmodernism -or the cultural logic of late capitalism describes it as, “The way in which our entire contemporary social system has little by little begun to lose its capacity to retain its own past, has begun to live in a perpetual present and in a perpetual change that obliterates traditions of the kind which all earlier social formations have had in one way or another to preserve.” Following this is postmodernity where reason loses its fundamentality and also nature (aided by things such as our hyper reality and living in a world of mere representations and spectacle, advertisements and media saturated world etc). Where we basically become entirely anaesthetised with no ability for critical thought and have ultimately a vacant and submissive nature to imposed ideology

[@snwbrdhb]

In a way, @Snaps you understand perfectly! One of the primary goals of postmodernism is to distrust definitions/definitive answers. haha But to be more helpful to your question... One of the best examples I got was when someone says: "I miss the good ol' days!" and you ask them: "when was that precisely" and they might answer: -"Well... The 50s!" => to which you might say... well probably not for black people or women. -or maybe - "Well back when I had a high paying job" => to which you might say... "well for you maybe, but not for the people who missed out on getting your position." Another good example is: the color "red" that I see is different than the color "red" that you see. Which of us is *right* or *wrong* about the color "red"? -weird question right?! So instead of a block of all-one-color red (a modernist, meta-narrative), a postmodernist would want to make a block built of 1000 tiny pixels of "red" as different people see it. It's Truth (with a capital T - I call it the authori-T) vs truth as a collective impression. The point is: how we experience reality is subjective - which means it's different depending on who you ask - but each experience is equally valid.

[@daydreamer-ix2bo]

I love the fact that this video came up when I searched for postmodernism. Tom, you're a legend! Thanks goodness you've fixed the audio now.

[@kerry-ch2zi]

Thank you Tom for outlining that so concisely. This is the "gold standard" of the outline of the problem as I see it. You give us a lot of room to work with here. Aristotle measured our sanity by our steps of removal from "substance." Kant pointed out that we don't really have access to the "thing-in-itself." Gestalt psychology involves us in how our brains modify the data we get directly from our senses. The object of these nested simulacrums seems to be to get rid of the object in favor of the step of semantic removal from it that suits the reaction sought by the "meta-narrative." What it boils down to is the claim that gold is a "social construct" itself by eliminating the distinction between gold itself and its value. Gold is then denied to be identifiable by its perceivable attributes; shininess, malleability, etc., because its worth is determined to be more real to society than its tangible aspects. So "gold" becomes a metonym for gold; a substitute for the actual, any thing of value, and thus gold itself can then be exchanged for any term for a medium that represents wealth, gain, status, etc.

[@premkumar7036]

Brother, it's a simple and effective video lesson. Love from India fine and clear examples.

[@craigjackson3550]

You deserve high marks for effort, Post-Modernism is a rough topic. I'm surprised you didn't mention your videos on "Spectacle", either way, great job! I'm a grad student and Post-Modernism is always so hard to approach, yet you handled it well.

[@thescapegoatclub]

I’m trying to decide whether, through watching this, I gained more brain cells than those I burned through trying to understand it. Thank you for a great video. I’ll be watching again... one day I’ll get it :) !!

[@cyclenutter2715]

Sameee lol

[@Crabbadabba]

The Scholar's Dilemma. At least, that's what I'm calling it. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@cyclenutter2715]

@@Crabbadabba hehe good one

[@soren633]

Hopefully it’s a vague net positive ;)

[@dylanquinn4031]

I feel your pain

[@shockadelic]

A "certain amount of gold" only has an "intrinsic value" because people say it does. In "reality", gold is just a rock dug out of the ground. Linking value to a rock is no more legitimate than linking it to pieces of paper or digits in a computer.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Yes, absolutely. Sorry, perhaps (quite probably!) I wasn't massively clear here. What was important about the gold standard was that it quantified currency in relationship to gold primarily because gold is limited in supply rather than because gold has any inherent value. It therefore meant that the amount of currency in circulation in any one country was, to some extent, fixed or could at least only grow slowly on the accumulation of gold (in the same manner that Bitcoin operates around solved equations in order to allow circulation to grow but only gradually and with decreasing speed). This therefore also meant that exchange between currency had some consistency because each currency was similarly pinned to gold. Hope that clears it up a little! Many economists consider its abolition to be a good thing, I don't have a particular opinion, was just using it as an example. (Although, I would argue that gold at least has some use-value in comparison to numbers on a screen which can't be used for much at all).

[@writingonthewall3326]

I'd assert that gold does have an inherent value based on it's rarity, usefulness and malleability. I understand this is an argument of value so it's a deep rabbit hole, but if we just look at it for now as a 'reasonable vehicle of exchangeable currency' or 'barter' it's 'value' derides from the it's rarity in that 'people can't make the stuff (I know there's lots of stuff people cant make - it's not the point)'. That's why alchemy (one substance into gold/something else) is 'the holy grail' of science. Gold is the closest this on this planet we have to a perfect medium of exchange... It's limited, useful, malleable and corrosion proof. The economic argument for gold as nation's foundation is another argument entirely - no, I'm not a gold advocate as a foundational value system. But make no mistake, people will ALWAYS accept gold. Hope I didn't come off as a dick.

[@robertcaseydavis]

Except for the inherent scarcity of the rock. The problem with fiat is its core feature: that it has no limitation.

[@TallicaMan1986]

Gold is incredibly important for electronics at the moment.

[@zr3755]

Gold has value because it's a rare precious metal. Don't try and take the meaning out of everything

[@elijahclaude3413]

By far, this is one of the best explanations of post-modernism I've seen thus far! So many others seem to just jump to moral grandstanding and slamming the idea as dumb or concatenating it with wokeism and such, and only achieves in obscuring the entire point. Thanks so much for this description!!

[@IvanZigamet]

Stumbled upon this video in July 2021 and realized how much this channel has grown in quality. Very well done, Tom!

[@thespiritofhegel3487]

Incredulity towards meta-narratives? That's me done for.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, this is probably the best comment I’ve ever had.

[@manorothpitlordextraordina4041]

Starczar his name is “spirit of Hegel.” Hegel was a philosopher- he liked meta narratives

[@lukaskaltenmaier3808]

Downvoted because hegel

[@aishwariyasweety2433]

@@lukaskaltenmaier3808 downvoted for downvoteing hegel.

[@mikeexits]

I have no idea what this means. Your second sentence makes no sense to me. Is it supposed to be read with an old english accent or something?

[@petrospk6544]

I love how eloquently you dismiss the populist conception of the post modern etc. Makes me chcuckle everytime. Thank you for sharing valid knowledge with us Tom

[@Quantumtalesxx]

This was an excellent presentation! I'm a sociology graduate and I was struggling with many things after going through some parts of Lyotard's "The Post-Modern Condition". This cleared up a lot for me, as well as the fact that post-modernism should not necessarily be seen as a prescriptive condition, but as a descriptive one. I really think that the postmodern lens as a descriptive tool is of great value. A true eye-opener. Thank you sir!

[@Haffmatthew]

The audio on this one is a stark difference from your more recent work. Not complaining, but rather impressed with how much change has already taken place

[@Pyro-Moloch]

The way you pronounced US sounded like "You ass". Thank you for opening for me a new look at the beautiful name of this magnificent country.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Haha, entirely unintentional and I meant no offence I promise!

[@Pyro-Moloch]

@@Tom_Nicholas it's fine, I'm not american d:

[@sabahfatema]

That is beyond perfect!

[@katherinemorelle7115]

Really? I definitely heard you ess not you ass. Though I also find Americans are weird with their a/e distinction. Like- how does Kerry and Carey sound the same? Or Aaron and Erin? Tara and Tera? Or the weirdest- Craig and Greg! I read a story where a plot twist hinged on someone misconstruing Aaron for Erin, and it just didn’t land for me- there were some that had figured it out, but as the two names sound completely different to me, I wasn’t going to catch on 😂

[@tjcofer7517]

@@Tom_Nicholas I'm American and I appreciate it

[@kimsasso6765]

I have enjoyed your videos before but this one really made an impression. I have watched countless videos today, trying to grasp Post Modernism. Yours is the first one to give it enough shape that I could begin to get hold of it! Thank you.

[@alighieroalighieri404]

You are an excellent example of syntheses and clarity. You should do a video on Jameson's critique of Postmodernism and another on Cognitive Mapping.

[@yulyalim5178]

Hi Tom! Thanks a lot for the video. I just wanted to note that Lyotard introduced the term to the philosophical realm while it already existed in other spheres. Brian McHale, in his book The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodernism, states that already in 1973, postmodernism 'acquired its name.' McHale also notes that some literary scholars started to use this term in 1970 (he brings an example of Leslie Fiedler). So Lyotard didn't invent it, but without a doubt, he contributed a lot into the development of theory around postmodernism :)

[@michaelmadden3016]

This is one of the greatest videos I have ever seen on this website, thank you so much.

[@robertprichard1171]

Video starts at 3:49.

[@TheYopogo]

13:17 Your account of Bretton Woods is a little bit inaccurate here. It's true that other currencies were denominated in Dollars, but the Dollar was in fact still denominated in Gold. Part of the reason it collapsed is that in the 70s the US started printing lots of new dollars to help with Vietnam war debt, so each dollar corresponded to less of the US gold reserve, causing very high inflation in the Bretton Woods countries by devaluing their dollar reserves. (This is a major part of why western Europe had an economic stagflation crisis in the 70s, not excessive union power like the Tories always say) When Nixon wouldn't stop it, France and the UK threatened to simultaneously demand their entire dollar reserves' worth of gold from the US as was their right under Bretton Woods, which would collapse the dollar; and rather than either do so or stop the currency manipulation, Nixon just abandoned the Bretton Woods system altogether.

[@danielbrissenden2555]

Your understanding certainly takes you all over the map. Art, economics, political theory, theatre, literature. You are very busy!

[@varnull6120]

Oh wow that audio. I love this video, hence being back, but it's jarring coming from your newer ones. Congrats!

[@mariozaratex2]

This is an amazing video. One of the best explanations for postmodernism I have ever seen!

[@TheDavidWyper]

Could you please do a video on deconstruction and Derrida? Also maybe Focault

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Deconstruction is definitely on my list! Was there any particular element of Foucault you’re interested in, there’s at least 4 potential videos there!

[@e4Nf3Bc4b4]

Discipline and punish please!

[@mariannamb]

thank u for explaining it so well!!! you're really helping me with my socio class rn

[@lighgblue2676]

I loved this video. Thankyou so much. I'm not highly educated but have always been interested in these topics I'd just love to see you cover these topics giving even more examples to drill it home

[@eottoe2001]

Big help in understanding: I like the idea that we have stereotypes and at some point there is an embrace of the stereotype over the reality, i.e., a professor told me that there was research being done to have real blueberry resemble the taste of blueberry flavoring used in candy because many people thought the artificial was the real flavor. In the US, the television cowboy doesn't look anything like way real cowboys looked but that becomes the vision. Thank you.

[@williamseymourjones9430]

thanks man! this will help me a lot for my university assignment

[@mark4asp]

Postmodernism formally arrived in 1961 with the publication of Michel Foucault's "History of Madness" (in the Age of Enlightenment); 61 years ago. Despite some initial success Pomo does not influence Western Philosophy, and we rarely hear about it from actual philosophers except when they dis' it. Yet pomo is firmly entrenched in Academia within various far left 'theory' disciplines. Where we find: Feminism, Queer studies, Transgenderism, Critical Race Theory, Anti-colonialism, Film Studies, media studies, leftisms, ... there we also always find pomo. Hand and glove. Pomo gives these disciplines or studies credibility. Most ideas from such 'studies' lack good empirical support; but pomo can legitimise them as Big Ideas! Ideas instead. Ideas which explain the world to the students of such 'studies'. The very "cultural logic of Western society", to cite Nicholas. The 'theorists' who teach such lefty studies never develop new pomo ideas. They use pomo as a weapon against their critics. Pomo is epistemically relativist; which means: it promotes skepticism of truth claims. Pomos say 'truth is myth', in the Foucauldian, and Derridean senses. 1. From Foucault we hear that 'truth' is established by regimes of power, and is used by such regimes of power to establish domination over us. So 'truth' is a tool of 'power'. 2. From the Derridean side, they tell us that every meaning associated with a sign (such as 'racism', for example) gets its meaning from a network of other signs; from the meanings of those signs which denote or connote 'racism'. Given people from different ethnicities, sexes, cultures, and identities disagree of the meaning of some signs, no two people are likely to give the same meaning for 'racism'. So there's no irreducible, stable, meaning to 'truth'. And many meanings are contested. As I already said, philosophers long ago refuted both these points made by pomo (above). But the modern academy is an istitution where academics don't need to listen to critics of their ideas. For example climate alarmists, say, non-alarmism is 'denialism', and they refuse to debate or listen to 'deniers'. That such 'deniers' cannot be allowed a platform to speak. The modern academy turned itself into a machine to manufacture bias and closed-mindedness. Q: Yet, given pomo is intellectually vacuous, why is Michel Foucalt now the most cited author in the humanities? A: Dispite its wrongness, pomo still does a job, or two. Pomo gives one a license: 1) to speculate. Pomos gives one a set of academically 'respectable' ideas to cite: books and papers. For example, one of these pomo 'masters' (Foucault) is cited more than anyone else in the humanities. Peter Boghossian calls 'idea laundering' the practice of getting a junk idea published in an academic journal and then having your friends and allies cite your publication in support of their own junk ideas. Furthermore, the production of vacuous speculation, founded on previous speculation is now a career path within academia. 2) to disregard one's critics and their evidence; and to celebrate closed minds and bias. "Postmodernism is the academic far Left’s epistemological strategy for responding to the crisis caused by the failures of socialism in theory and in practice" - Stephen Hicks: "Expllaining Postmodernism", in the chapter "Responding to socialism’s crisis of theory and evidence". Citations: 1. Idea laundering: www.wsj.com/articles/idea-laundering-in-academia-11574634492 2. "Expllaining Postmodernism" - free audio book! kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4LGf51-g72he6c, narated by its author 3. epistemically relativist: www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/epistemic-relativism/v-2

[@beautifuldonkey6338]

Thank god you got a better mic in recent times!

[@nunyabiz6532]

Commenting for engagement so people find this and finally learn what postmodernism really is

[@maryclarence6429]

Thanks for the video it's helping ne understand postmodernism and why it is such a target for the far right. Audio quality doesn't usually bother me but it was rough on this video, glad to see production has been so much better since.

[@tinastarewich2777]

Thanks!

[@jamespoppitz3336]

Surprisingly good attempt at defining postmodernism and its ever shifting almost foundations....it will take a few more decades to standardize the common usages and supposed definition but we in da middle of it,for damn sure.

[@wodidos]

Also there is a book by Christopher Butler called: Postmodernism A Very Short Introduction which I found pretty helpful. Page 29: “ Postmodernism thus involved a highly critical epistemology, hostile to any overarching philosophical or political doctrine, and strongly opposed to those “dominant ideologies”that help to maintain the status quo.” Edit: Oh I just realised you used the same source

[@donsudduth]

First time viewer - well done for a short overview!!!

[@kalokization]

Thank you so much Tom! I enjoyed this. I am interested to know what people who study etymology think of Wittgensteinian language game but could not find very much that links the two fields of study. If you have any idea, I would very much appreciate it if you let us know. Cheers!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

When Wittgenstein writes about language, he's talking much more about language as a functional communicative tool rather than being interested in the particular developments of each word so I'm not sure he'd have had much to say on the topic of etymology. However, it would certainly be interesting to read an etymologist's take on his work!

[@emanym]

I’m so glad your audio improved 😅

[@christophervannatto8526]

Got it. You were entirely clear. Thank you.

[@iainewokrobinson]

Fantastic, mate! Thanks very much for that, I've been hunting for a decent attempt at an explanation.

[@EmmaLyons-z1f]

Thank you for your videos! you are helping me understand the theories in law more than my tutor! Really grateful for your help!

[@auwaluumar9871]

Please expatiate more on deconstruction especially how theory can be successfully be used in the practical analysis of the text by bringing to the fore the major tenets of Derridean terms like supplement, destinerrance, chasm, blindspot, the undecidability, linguistic reading, aporias and silences and the host of others I skipped.

[@DanielChiaJiaNuo]

Hey! Thanks for the amazing video Tom - just amazed that you took all that effort to reply to so many people's comments and queries individually, in relative depth but yet coherently. It would be amazing if all KZbinrs were as dedicated to their viewers as you. Keep it up!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Hey Daniel, glad you liked it! Chatting in the comments is definitely one of the things I like most about KZbin. I don’t get quite as much time to do so anymore (or certainly not enough time to reply to them as quickly as I used to) as I get a fair few comments these days but I try my best still!!

[@michaelbird2397]

Thank you so much. Brilliant straightforward explanation

[@alexkroogman2283]

Hey tom, communication student from Israel here, stumbled upon your channel upon studying for my exams. You explain the subjects in an interesting way, sending you love from Israel.

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Hi Alex, really glad you've enjoyed my videos, really appreciate you taking the time to say so! Best of luck with your exams!

[@user-cm9ft5bg7i]

Alex Kroogman shut up and get the f out of the middle east

[@keith59]

Interesting. The essence of postmodernism and the concept of a 'simulacrum' originates in Kant's observation of the 'ding an sich '.

[@Arthurdbsxx]

This meta-narations and simulacra is very well defined in post-colonized nations, such as Indonesia. I have observed there is a meta-naration and simulacra on hating the previous colonizers. Though if we see the case holistically, the colonizers did gave benefit in pre-Indonesia time, such as the construction of the city of jakarta, banking system, trading system etc.. But the citizens don't want to remember that and always go back to the meta-narative of an oppressed nation due to the colonizers. So this simulacra that the citizens of Indonesia believe to be truth, turn out is truth as far as the political interest goes. Because the meta-narative of hating the colonizers benefit parties in winning against the colonizers. Hence why this simulacra prevailed in post-colonized times of Indonesia. Whether the colonizers were truely evil or not, no one truely know.

[@pacotaco1246]

looking forward to the sequel videos on postpostmodernism and postpostpostmodernism!

[@pigzy9807]

I see allot of criticism of post modernism around these days, and I am try to find someone who argues in a favour of it so I can get an honest interpretation, is the only way to do this to sift through arcane texts from the 60s? This video helped a bit but it really only explain simulacrum (which was interesting) but that surely can't be all there is to it. The issue people seem to have is what people do with the critic. For instance my interpretation is basically, if you drill down on any point, like a kid asking 'why' over and over, you get down to an axiom that rests on nothing but is asserted anyway. People making these assertions are putting forward a meta narrative. Because there is not objective claim to the meta narrative you can only push it through means of power. So we are just players in a power game trying to win people over to our meta narrative to advance our selves. So if we are all in a big meaningless power game, then I might as well get to winning it, so I will just make up what ever bull shit and use what ever tacit I can to win because rules and morals themselves make no sense anyway so its hardly cheating.

[@whereisawesomeness]

Eve Pigzy If you're still interested in this, the KZbinrs Cuck Philosophy and Peter Coffin argue from a postmodern perspective quite frequently (Cuck Philosophy has a three part series on what postmodernism is, which could be helpful). Personally, I've found reading Foucault to be the most helpful, though I get why some people want to avoid that

[@safardebon9720]

Meta narratives can be to advance ourselves OR what is best for the commons based on third party verification i.e. the scientific method collectivism as opposed to the scientific institution collectivism. The latter is now behaving so as to advance it's self interest with deep state manipulations. The idea of alpha predator winning at all cost without considering consequences for others is based on a grand narrative of life as a meaningless power game. If the narrative is faulty, the conclusion will be questionable. But this narrative has been used by psychopathic narcissists to validate their inherent lack of an integrated self. Postmodernists catch them out!

[@thekingoffailure9967]

Check out the youtube channel "Jreg" for post modernist art :)

[@tehcatakai]

Really good use of Baudrillard's notion of simulacra in relation to the ending of the gold standard! Thats one I haven't heard of before but works incredibly well in conveying the idea

[@asdfgh-sd5cd]

Thanks again for the first time in the morning

[@simonhodges6084]

I think there are some philosophical issues with the explanation of money and Baudrillard's model of simulacrum on a number of levels. On one level, yes, following a certain point in history the value of the dollar was taken off gold but it was transferred to an exchange or value based upon the price of oil and other commodities on the level of global international markets. As much as this occurs on a international macro economic level, then it similarly occurs on a micro economic level: as every time you take fiat paper currency which is not 'backed' by gold into a shop, it is effectively backed by the food and commodities any seller is prepared to exchange for it. All that has really changed is that the monetary system has proved it can function effectively: regardless of whether it is a licensed bank backing the promissory note with an exchange for a certain quantity of gold - or whether it is international or individual merchants exchanging it for other real world commodities such as corn, wheat, oil, newspapers, onions, tins of lager or cigarettes. The currency can be backed by either the official and unofficial or macro and micro economic sides as it were. It is never therefore a purely 'symbolic' form of exchange. Fiat currency therefore cannot be hyper-real or a representation of a representation in the Platonic sense that is often implied, because it is always immediately redeemable for physical products of some kind or another on both the macro and micro economic levels regardless of whether or not the fiat currency is notionally backed by a central bank and designated precious metal whose values themselves are tied to matters of faith and no objective value.

[@JustASnack]

From what I understood in this video, a simulacra is like when you repeat a word over and over again until it looses it's meaning and starts to sound like a funny sequence of sounds.

[@Bbenja4]

No, simulacras copies of things without an orginal, Think about an unicorn 🦄. An orginal unicorn never existed, but we still have stuffed toys and other things representing them. Tom points to money, a dollar's value used to represent a fix amount of gold held by a central bank. Now the dollar is not back by gold, it's value comes from being a dollar. It's now a simulacra because the orginal thing backing it no longer exists.

[@JustASnack]

@@Bbenja4 I was originally trying to make a funny but honestly thank you for clearing the air about the idea, helped me grasp the concept better

[@stevepowsinger733]

Bryan, and money is an interesting example because it is no mere work of art or simple word but an instrument of commerce.

[@Crocalu]

@@Bbenja4 Bad example, unicorns do exist, you're just making an assumption about the history of unicorns. There are plenty of animals that grow horns which, sometimes, grow a single horn. Take other mythological creatures, like cyclopes, and you'd have to look into the phenomenological source of something like a cyclops. It's folly to just assume that things like mythological creatures never had an original. Still looking for an example that actually proves the idea of simulacra, instead of "sort of" proving it

[@sebastianzanzinger]

Great video! :) I have a question: Since, as I understood it, postmodernism is more of a way of looking at things rather than an era, could the legitimization of religious institutions be seen as a simulacrum? E.g. the bible is true because the bible says it is true? Which therefore gives arbiters like religious leaders the power that they have... And another question: If you were to question why all meta narratives have to be questioned, would that be postmodernist in itself or would we reach something else like post-postmodernism? Hopefully not too confusing ;)

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Heya, thanks! Your point about postmodern thought not necessarily having to take place within a certain period is a really, really good one. However, I'd say that the notion of something being a simulacrum tends to refer to it being devoid of meaning rather than not being backed up by solid evidence (and for something to have meaning to an individual or group, it doesn't necessarily have to be true). So, I'd suggest that the answer to your question about religion is probably no. In fact, religions are a really key example of meta-narratives as they are very thoroughly constructed totalising worldviews. To your second point, I'd suggest that you fairly aptly describes the state of contemporary discourse. However, I'd suggest that this more represents a return to modernist modes of thought than anything else (some have tried to forward the idea that, yes, we might call that postpostmodernism or "metamodernism" but I think that stems from some academics' desire to want to coin new terminology and sound incredibly intelligent than anything else.

[@ceci9933]

Literally the way my lecturer in uni explained it was so confusing 😭

[@wiskeeamazingdancer4964]

This was definitely better than a vague net positive.

[@BillysKingdom]

Saw the run time and groaned by the end i was annoyed it was ending so soon lol

[@TSmith-yy3cc]

Really smashing work!

[@alaen2]

An great, introductory presentation, thank you very much

[@sensaiko]

Great job, kid! It's amazing to see someone trying to do a serious job on such a subject!

[@sensaiko]

Again, after seeing your replies, amazing job!

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thanks!

[@roryjones1232]

I very much enjoyed your presentation. Thank you! You have given me pause for further thought.

[@danielbrissenden2555]

Scary, what you said about our legal rulings being based on former precedents. There's a killer novel just in that concept...

[@JohnRay1969]

Kick ass opening theme.

[@skullkssounds1938]

An ideology that rejects ideology

[@Tom_Nicholas]

I see what your trying to say and that's probably not a bad way of summing it up in a simple quip but, I think, to refer to postmodernism as an ideology is probably not quite correct precisely because of its inherent skepticism. We tend to use the term ideology to refer to worldview which is necessarily closed-off to other ways of thinking whereas postmodernism (as much as it can broadly be described as one thing) is definitively quite the opposite. Furthermore, postmodernism (for the most part and with some exceptions) isn't something that people subscribe to in the same sense that one might say "I'm a capitalist", "I'm a socialist" etc; in many, many regards, we're all "postmodernists" because our society is distinctly postmodern. (Sorry for replying to your pithy quip with a wall of text but if that doesn't sum me up as a human being I don't know what does...)

[@hugofontes5708]

I might have to watch this one a couple times, all I got was how people distrust metanarratives because we live in a hyperreality full to the brim with simulacra of stuff

[@ChV342]

Thank you for your videos! You speak so clearly and I really appreciate that and your educational Content. It really helps with my studies and generally to broaden my horizon. Thank you 🙏

[@pancakepancake3789]

this was fantastic - subscribing. could you please spend some time talking about the relationship between postmodernism and neoliberalism? thanks for the skillful presentation of a complex topic, well done.

[@imperialmotionfilms5789]

I made an example to make sense of hyperreality hope it helps idk The wild west is built on not what originally was in the western states of America. But it is built on faces developed by what film makers and even Italians thought that part of the world was like based on stories from other viewers. These views are then churned through as the films created by the original film makers inspire and shape peoples views of the wild west and eventually it becomes extremely far detached from the reality. It becomes an extension of reality and not the truth. Therefore the wild west as we know it is more of a simulacrum than reality.

[@karenboomer9667]

i feel like we're in a process of becoming aware of how some of our values are in conflict with one another forcing us to re-examine our belief systems, and that is a threat to the status quo

[@kalebproductions9316]

The meta-narrative is the water a fish is swimming in and postmodernism is the hand that picks the fish out from the water, just temporarily, to let the fish know what it was swimming in all along. Postmodernism has no meta-narrative. It's response to the question, "What exists and what is valuable. And based on that what the ideal state of a human being or society of such?", is either silence or, "A Man Called Tom , A Limerick by Kaleb. There once was a man who opined. He thought he was awfully fined. He tried not to laugh, At his terrible gaff, He couldn't say no to the unsigned."

[@nettysimons9828]

Great! Thank you so much. You did a real good job!

[@politicallynonbinary]

I would love to see this video remade with your current skills and expanded upon - made without the times constraints this video was made under

[@timd93401]

If you judged postmoderism by its popular adherents you get very different feel by reading primary sources. Its a tool for diagnosis not able create a positive world view. Its like trying build personal philosophy from colonoscopy.

[@lawrencemashiyane2986]

Brilliant introduction to Postmodernism. I am doing post graduate studies in English Literature and this is very helpful. I have subscribed.

[@devanshimaloo7956]

All your videos are so beautiful and they will totally help me pass Literature Theory! Thank you

[@Tom_Nicholas]

Thanks for saying so Devanshi!

[@clipboss8052]

I think people tend to confuse effect with reason. You can tell them that the value of Social Media is in some ways subjective and someone will ask "Nuh uh! Look at this! We can track how it affects users psychologically and it's use in revolutions overseas!". And to that I say, "Well... yeah. I wasn't exactly dismissing that these processes exist and may be occurring as we speak. I'm saying that you have only explained an effect. Why do we place value in social media given what we know about it? That is the question. Objectively speaking, we can see how it affects our attention spans through encouragement of quick and easy validation with dopamine rushes. But knowing that, why do we as a society seem to be placing so much importance in the value of social media? Because yes: objectively speaking Social Media changes how much info is being shared across the world at any given time. But why do we like social media? You've given me a cause. Not a reason." Now is that a Scientific question? Probably not, but it can be hard to say. The problem with applying this to fields like Sociology and Anthropology is the existence of reflexivity as a concept. Sociology is trying to study the values and norms of our culture. While there are effective methods of recording it, the problem is that while the reality of Society is observable, measurable (within' certain limits), and recordable, it is not really repeatable. At least, not in the same way an experiment in a lab is repeatable. If we want to discuss the Demarcation Problem, that is completely fine! Let us discuss what counts as a Science. Whether there can be different kinds of Science. Not just by what they study, but by how they study it. But if there is no room for subjectivity in science, then I would say no to the idea of certain fields & methods of Sociology. But that is fine if it isn't (whether in part or in it's entirety). As intellectuals, we should be willing to be honest about the limits of our methods as they apply to field of knowledge. Personally, I think that Sociology can be counted as a Science (but only in limited ways and applications). I like to distinguish between what I call Hard Science & Soft Science. But that can be vague, so do not take my word at face value. If Science is absolutely required to apply objectivity to every aspect of reality, good f*cking luck! I personally think there is an objective naturalistic reality we live in. Problem is that we have an awareness of this reality combined with an imagination which seems to compel us to make sense of this reality in a struggle with the limits of our senses. And on top of this, we have a problem of adding subjective value judgements on top of this. This subjectivity can create or influence an objective part of reality when we act as cogs to other cogs which influence us as cogs to other cogs of a variety of different cogs. The problem is that our subjective desires can influence or lead to the development of objective effects (whether they exist to us as the desired effects or not). But even those effects can be different across different societies in very crucial ways. All we can take from this discussion is that we do not exist in a vacuum. Nothing does. At best we can only classify different outcomes and causes or series of outcomes & causes in an attempt to make sense of the otherwise seemingly randomized universe we happen to live in.

[@heinoustentacles5719]

Thank you, Steven

[@artiesolomon3292]

You are always interesting and informative.

[@Hakajin]

I majored in English, where we definitely should've talked about post-modernism. However, near the time we were supposed to talk about it, we had a guest lecturer at my school who was big in Environmental Criticism, so we studied that instead. Not that I didn't get anything out of that, but that definitely left a gap in my understanding of literature. I tried looking into it myself, but what I got was, something something simulacrum, something something nothing Capitalism. That's an exaggeration: I feel like I understand the basic tenets. Like, I understand this idea about whether it's even possible to know anything objectively, given that we're locked in to subjective points of view. But I'm still left with questions, like: what do they mean by "real?" Because if you ask me, there's no such thing as "not real;" there's only different kinds of realities. That may be falsely equated with each other, fair enough... I myself am a solipsist: I believe the world beyond myself exists, but I can't prove it. But regardless of whether it's developed by external stimulus, my subjective experience exists. Like that. But I think you just explained it? Simulacra are references that have lost connection to their referents? And we're left in a system of simulacra? That makes sense... Although I feel like it's not the only way to look at it. I question how helpful it is to think of "references" as something separate from the reality which they help constitute. Because what really makes references different from referents, if we can't escape our own subjective points of view? Like, even if there IS a difference, how could we know for sure? References are real because we perceive them to be real. If you want more of an argument, belief in these references constitutes our physical reality, as with Trump's election. Anyway, I ended up in Education, in a sub-category where we explore a lot of Foucault and Butler. I feel like I get what they're saying, but... I was co-author on a paper for publication using Butler as framework, and we almost misrepresented her on certain points. Now, though, I can see a direct link between Wittgenstein's writing on language and power, and her performativity. What you're talking about here also severely reminds me of Adorno and Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment," which is funny, considering that they were Marxists. I mean, Marxism kinda relies on that totalizing metanarrative, doesn't it?

[@stevenbosch429]

The poet and memoirist Mary Karr writes about and teaches classes in how she and writers she respects and admires deal with questions of real and unreal. She argues that the genre dates back to St. Augustine’s “City of God.” Karr insists that a false memoirist cheats themselves out of the community with the readers. She also argues that the best memoirist never deludes him/herself into thinking that they understand exactly the meaning and the motivation of everyone they ever came in contact with. She sets her arguments down in her book “The Art of Memoir,”

[@MadnSad]

Brilliant. Truly brilliant.

[@samthesomniator]

You are one of my favorite simulacrum. 😊👍

[@jeffersonmayfield6701]

I believe the take away can be more accurately taken from the beginning and one can extrapolate upon it. The definition of post modernism is varying to the degree where it doesn't strictly have definition and is more an idea. Which means two things, it continues to be defined still. Also, those who use the term as a confident basis of reference are "full of it" (how I label) OR they have created their own firm definition based on their own journeys in thought that are solely their own which they typically do not share when using the term. In my opinion, the latter usually feels like it leads to nonsense or agenda. Great video! It's clearly unclear!! 😊🧐

[@Albeit_Jordan]

Great video! Much appreciated!

[@henriporter5686]

Dear Mr. Nicholas, improving yoursound quality will make the listen more enjoyable. What Says You?

[@ChRoPi21]

Really great video. Thanks this is helping me with my Dissertation thank you

[@mynameisdarcy9223]

Incredible video

[@scottalbers2518]

This is excellent! Thanks so much! Absolutely fantastic. Clear, well stated, beautifully made. Thanks so, so much!

[@stormnightingale7389]

This is such a great video and it is very useful in helping me to understand postmodernism. I feel like you have explained it in a good way that isn't too complex. I am studying postmodern theory in regards to contemporary dance in theatre. Could I please by any chance have a copy of the notes that you used for this video or any links for this theory for research please?

[@LogicGated]

Very clear and detailed video.

[@jacknugent4812]

Absolutely amazing content, thank you

[@sideshowhashi4701]

Skip to 3:52

[@rachslo195]

Thank you for this video! Really good information, really clear and concise, with good examples. Much appreciated!

[@imaadhifthikar4054]

postmodernism: *things are not as they seem, they might in fact be the complete opposite.*

[@gonzogil123]

Good intro. A question worth asking is whether Derrida´s conclusions are objective comment upon an object of interest to him (does he ever define it?) language, and its particular manifestations? is what he says about "binarism" true, or, false regardless of who does a deconstructuve analysis? will I arrive at the same conclusions about the ideological character of Aparthaid as someone else that may also do the same deconstrutive analysis of aparthaid? You can deconstruct any, and all texts: that is quite a universal application. So, there is something about his object of study that is truthful, and universal. Something that he was able to isolate about it that anyone else that may inspect it may also be able to detect. The issue of "undecidability" is from Godel which is interesting. Derrida´s dialectics are not so discombolulating if you read an intro to formal, dialectical logic, Russell, and Godel. They are not bad. But he and Barth decontextualize too much. As if correcting what you are saying, checking in order to see if what you meant was conveyed does not lead to a bit of an improvement. Authors check, and do drafts, and edit the book etc. So, yes behind every book there is a will to convey meaning, and they work hard at it. I do not see how doing away with the process of writting a book would help. Anyways, some thoughts.