Postmodernism is a tool that allows us to take any idea, question, or issue, then manipulate language until the answer you want comes out.

@djanitatiana

6 жыл бұрын

Derserves a few more upvotes. Chomsky said (I think it was him) that pomo is just tool to gain power and you comment nails the "how".

@imalaughimacry480

6 жыл бұрын

Kyle Clements Nice trick in the short term

@RODERICKMOLASAR

6 жыл бұрын

Kyle Clements Modern Gymnosophists?

@drahcirnevarc9152

6 жыл бұрын

Very succinctly and well put.

@drahcirnevarc9152

6 жыл бұрын

How postmodernism manifests itself is context-dependent. For instance, postmodernism in the context of semantics - semantic postmodernism, if you will - seems to consist in the claim of semantic relativism, that there is no absolute truth. Whereas epistemic postmodernism has evolved into a political philosophisation about the relationship between knowledge, linguistic dominance, and power. And literary postmodernism is something else entirely, often describing, quite simply, the sort of writer who quite literally comes after modernists like Beckett, Wyndham Lewis, Joyce, and Pound. In perhaps its most pernicious manifestation, it is simply a sophistical mantle adopted by grant-truffling pseudo-intellectual showbiz personalities, of the sort whose pretensions were so brilliantly exposed by Sokal & Bricmont in the 1990's.

A very useful encapsulation of how academia degraded and destroyed itself.

@NicolasIbarra

7 жыл бұрын

Amazing. I'm from Latin America and postmodernism is very popular in academia (no wonder we're still struggling to develop).

@TheIbdeathskull

7 жыл бұрын

Nicolas Ibarra I'm so sorry. It is complete bullshit. The stage right after modernism made sense but the math of postmodernism was proven false and the lack of principles has never worked historically. It causes low birthrates even when "successfully" implemented by developed countries due to the need for high taxes and horrible productivity from the young.

@StreetsOfVancouverChannel

7 жыл бұрын

Succinctly encapsulated...

@DeliberateContrarian

6 жыл бұрын

Sacratease For now, but they have been silenced on any matters of social implications.

@ManInTheBigHat

6 жыл бұрын

Sacratease: For the moment.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

I am so grateful for Stephen Hicks and Jordan Peterson. Thank you so much.

@P3rformula

7 жыл бұрын

winnie wildflower - Learned about Hicks via Peterson. He posted his audiobook about explaining postmodernism on his KZread and it's very informative.

@winniewildflower3540

7 жыл бұрын

me too:) am studying that book :- reading the pdf at the same time/ researching all the philosphers about whom he speaks and learning soooOOOOooo much !

@drahcirnevarc9152

6 жыл бұрын

I think you mean his book Intellectual Impostures. I've read it twice and agree with you, it's bloody brilliant.

@bernlin2000

6 жыл бұрын

winnie wildflower Canadians are saving the thinking world! Meanwhile, Americans are too distracted by Trump to see that our education system is under attack, from within. This is no joke, folks: the humanities and liberal arts programs in many public universities has been corrupted by these post-modern philosophies.

@abdulgilzay371

6 жыл бұрын

These are superficial anti progressive crabs that have never transgressed their pigeon holes.

Postmodernism is meant to be discussed at length at dinner parties with a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other.

I LOVE this video! Stephen Hicks' clarity and directness are so to the point, and the disturbed perplexity in his facial expressions - says it all.

Hierarchies of competency replaced by hierarchies of victimhood. Ha, yeah what could possibly go wrong?

@SP-rk9ht

7 жыл бұрын

That's a very neat way to describe it. I like it.

@thinkcritically1990

6 жыл бұрын

You confuse financial success and competence. They are rarely the same. Indeed, why promote the good worker when you can promote the manipulator. The manipulator didn't do their job but showed they can do the other one. Capitalism rarely reward those who earned it.

@jakobalgeblad6732

6 жыл бұрын

Think Critically Really, rarely? Go watch the correlation between iq and social economic status. It is definetly not 100% perfect, but its the best system we have at hand.

@thinkcritically1990

6 жыл бұрын

I can make a study that proves or conversely fails to prove anything with statistics. The existence of the study proves more than the results do.

@donello430

6 жыл бұрын

You may be able to 'prove' something with a study, but if your study's bad it won't replicate or hold up to scrutiny. That's how science works. And science *does* work. If you're going to respond with 'well everything's subjective, nobody can know anything'...don't bother, it's crap.

Hick and/or Peterson should do an animated series wherein they explain the various high-profile ideologies plaguing western society.

Stephen Hicks' book Explaining Postmodernism is brilliant if you want a deeper understanding of this topic.

@orzclones

5 жыл бұрын

Except that he misquotes, takes out of context and deliberately lies to prop up his bullshit snake-oil philosophy. You really didn"t find it suspicious that he frames everything he likes as "individualistic, logical, objective" and anything else as "collectivist, illogical, subjective"? He tries to take on Kant as 'anti-reason' when the truth is the complete opposite and he is widely regarded as a significant enlightenment-figure that laid the foundation for our modern sense of ethics. Jordan Peterson even openly says that his philosophy is informed by Carl Jung and Nietzsche, who Stephen Hicks rails on as postmodernist 'illogicism'. This is the real danger to the west - stupid anti-enlightenment, anti-modern hacks destroying the legacy of western thought, and you brainlets who eat this trendy shite up. Even fellow 'objectivists' like him have published scathing critiques on the totally made up history and lack of substence.

@johnjacob5990

5 жыл бұрын

Stephen Hicks is a hack.

@user-fc6yp1xq1i

2 жыл бұрын

Thanks for this!

@lumiii_-

Жыл бұрын

It's also great if you know 0 about kant and want to fuck your brain up with nonsense

I watch this in June 202 and everything Stephen Hicks said has come to fruitation.

@waynebollman

Жыл бұрын

And fruition.

When I was in school, in my last class of my Master's degree to finish with my teacher's education, the course was titled "Philosophical Foundations of Education". The first words out the professor's mouth were... "You know what? Marxism ain't bad!" Ha ha the whole class was nothing but socialist indoctrination! The scary thing was that all of the people in the class seemed to just repeat and reiterate the professor's postulates like trained parrots! I couldn't believe it. I was the only objector and challenged everything. Postmodernism to me was just a veiled term to me to push the whole Animal Farm mob rule mentality. Like the phase of achievement in our society is done and now because of technology, it's time that we all go socialist now and feel bad for all of the industrial build out. Just silly stuff. I can't believe how gullible people are and how they would fall for such nonsense.

@edmilsoneletrica

6 жыл бұрын

ArkOmen1 , something similar happened to me many times I've my psychology course. The last one was a professor of psychoanalysis who said the following: "It's being proven that it's possible to have an all female society, in which men are only used as semen carriers." The feminists there loved it and even some (stupid) guys. It's baffling because they don't see how they are manipulated. They don't see that a man (in a position of power, nonetheless) saying this is disenfranchising himself, so it means he doesn't really believe it and actually wants something, which is human capital. By making these naive girls to be on his side. It was almost brilliant actually. A true performance.

@nathanrobinson1099

6 жыл бұрын

I would have replied "anything is possible depending on the level of tyranny you impose, until it stops working"

@Laguero

5 жыл бұрын

Stephen Hicks here has a website with a video series on the philosophy of education. I am a teacher as well, and I found his video series, which presents each philosophy in its own terms, several orders of magnitude more useful than the indoctrination class I had in teacher training.

@zenden6564

2 жыл бұрын

@@edmilsoneletrica - it seems grotesque to me.

@zenden6564

2 жыл бұрын

@@Laguero 😊

and the fourth stage is open war

@budibausto

6 жыл бұрын

Civil war you mean...unfortunately inevitable I'm afrad

@RamiroEloy1997

6 жыл бұрын

It'll look like the Rwanda genocide.

@virvisquevir3320

6 жыл бұрын

Ferox Mill - Or devolving into potatoes and extinction. I really believe that they are driven by nihilism and fuelled by resentment. Non-existence is their utopia, not just for themselves but for everyone The first step is to acknowledge that there are higher values and lower values. The next step is to fight for these higher values. They don't want war where the superior come out on top, what they want us a gradual undermining of all values, beliefs, confidence, until everyone and everything is so degraded that they have no fighting spirit left in them and just give up to servitude and death.

@shamster7182

5 жыл бұрын

The good thing is , their side is full of losers and weirdos so we will be able to flatten em in the war.

If there is no truth, why would equality be superior to inequality? Why compensatory justice instead of the strong being fully justified in asserting their advantage?

@jcold9147

6 жыл бұрын

If there is no truth. Do words have meaning?

@mr.wizard3024

6 жыл бұрын

They believe the strong ARE fully justified in asserting themselves. The strong in their view are the masses, or the mob.

Thank you for this video. It will help me on making the case that postmodernism has gone too far.

Concise, instructive and covers the point in question. Very, very, well done! Thank you both very much. I subscriberd based on this vid.

Better title: How Postmodernism Became Neo-Communism

@DarranKern

7 жыл бұрын

J. Scott Burgeson when was post-modernism ever not communism? Post-modernism came directly from Marxism and Leninism.

@j.scottburgeson3928

7 жыл бұрын

+Darran Kern: Do you understand what the prefix "-neo" means?

@DarranKern

7 жыл бұрын

J. Scott Burgeson the thing is, it's difficult to describe how post modernism is not a revival of communism, but a transformation of it. Right now, the "bourgeoisie" is literally just white men, no matter of they are dirt poor or an aristocrat. When the "proletariat" is spoiled, rich hipster cunts, and the "means of production" is _white_ motherfucking _SKIN,_ well... I think what we are dealing with now is something much worse. It'd be better to call it "nihilistic racist deconstructionism" because that's what this is.

@j.scottburgeson3928

7 жыл бұрын

+Darran Kern: It's simple. The redistribution of economic capital by revolutionary forces was exchanged for the redistribution of social capital. Class warfare was replaced with identity warfare. Got it?

@DarranKern

7 жыл бұрын

J. Scott Burgeson that's basically what I said.

Lots and lots of "us" don't have "guilt" we have "pride" . . . and power, so the missing ingredient is STRENGTH and WILLPOWER.

This strategy is just self-refuting. After all, if you *can* successfully get a person to shut up and go away, then - by definition - your power and privilege must exceed theirs.

@dena180

7 жыл бұрын

Nick Williams i never thought about it that way hahaha

Holy shit. Listening to this, now I realize how I was allured by the idea of Communism when I was in 10th grade up through early hippie days. I had a crush on Castro, my heartthrob was Che and Gadaffi of Libya was looking cute too. I went to live on a commune where all was equal and our thing in common was hatred of our government. It took me 2 weeks to figure out they were all on food stamps and welfare. I was the one chopping the wood, as they were busy eating. Appropriate the name of that dump was called "Fat City" . I hitchhiked my way back to Los Angeles and got a job and earned enough money to get an apartment and some LSD which flipped my mind back to reality.

I am so mortified to admit that in 1871, I was part of a drive to force the president of B.U., John Silber, to offer Herbert Marcuse a full professorship(he was a guest lecturer there at the time). Oh, the insanity of youth...is no excuse. I am burning in a rationalist hell, justifiably so. BTW, I had many seminars with the old goat, and we enjoyed a few horrid lunches at the student union. He was actually a very cultivated, seductive representative of EuroTrash, who impressed the callow youth I once was. But Reason is the sour fruit of Senescence..

@spencershears6497

6 жыл бұрын

OOOPS! 1971!!! Typo!!!!

@virvisquevir3320

6 жыл бұрын

Spencer Shears - By their fruits ye shall know them...

That was awesome

Mao would be proud. Of course the questions not asked is why did certain philosophies become dominant over others? This was not a random process, it was not a violent process. Simply put people found certain philosophies solved more problems in their daily lives than others.

@squatch545

7 жыл бұрын

Bullshit.

@revanel

7 жыл бұрын

I wouldn't call bullshit entirely. Though I would question whether those more 'dominant' philosophies are much easier to digest and adopt, or offer more immediately satisfaction.

@ssm59

7 жыл бұрын

revanel: agreed, once a philosophical system comes to dominate its adoption is enabled over others simply by its being woven into the fabric of society. The question I am asking is how does a minority's system come to replace the dominant one of its day? For this to happen, the emerging system must better address the needs of society vs the pre existing state.

@ssm59

7 жыл бұрын

Benjamin Briquet thanks for the reference, I I will put it on my list

@awaitingcertainty9852

7 жыл бұрын

Yes. That's how the Bolsheviks prevailed over the Mensheviks in the Russian Revolution. Also the more crooked wins. Solzhenitsyn writes how, before they knew which group would prevail, they'd do things like have a meeting together, and the Mensheviks would show up at the appointed time only to be told by the Bolsheviks that the meeting had already occurred an hour before. Nice!

Some old fashioned expressions seems to me to be applicable to postmodernist philosophers and their followers; (1) "educated beyond their intelligence", and (2) "A little learning is a dangerous thing". Those people do not have the intelligence to think for themselves and resist fashionable ideas; but they have had the intelligence (or was it just being obedient little regurgitaters of their teachers ideas?) to have passed the university entrance exams. Pretty silly eh?

It’s 2023 now. To think this conversation happened before George Floyd is amazing.

Outstanding video on many levels. Truly insightful in the best possible way. And yet distracting by the outrageously good looking chap on the left... I'm not yet ruled by my reasoning skills.

With ever growing population, we must let everything go, in order for the majority to be pleased...

The post modernists started out with some profound observations on information theory and how the brain models reality, but they extrapolated something that was really an oddity in the way the brain works into a ridiculous world view. An image that I have, an analogy, is that the world is like an art class where all different students are painting the same model, what they see. If you walk around the class you will see all different interpretations and variances in skill. Maybe even the odd Picasso. But if the whole class is drawing some version of a naked woman, but one person painted what looks to be a vase of flowers, that person is crazy. The postmodernist would say that person has a unique "truth", equally valid. And that is the question postmodernism does not answer: Sure, we see the world though a window, darkly, but if there is nothing absolute out there, how come we mostly all see roughly the same thing?

It’d be very interesting to have a discussion between Hicks and Peterson.

So that funny that you see the guy on left the whole time listening. Great insights.

nicely done!

Hands down-The best explanation I've ever heard of exactly what post-modernism is. Thank you.

An astute observation on how we have arrived to the age of grievance at the expense of free speech

i love stephen he seems great

I think Friedrich Nietzsche would be disgusted to have his vision of "will to power" linked to Ayn Rand, who was an ideologue and equated material wealth with personal "success". Nietzsche (and Kant, Schopenhauer, Emerson, Thoreau, Einstein, et al) despised "individuals" whose sense of self came from the material world. Such people were not individuals at all, but rather part of the mob, as were those who envied them. "Power" could only come from the struggle within (self-overcoming). BTW, they all viewed politics and political manipulation of ideas the lowest form of human discourse. That said, I agree that the extreme of the post-modernist movement is based on envy and trying to acquire power from without instead of within. None of these great philosophers cared one bit about these competitive finite games. The game was infinite and one must do one's best to contribute his/her true gifts (uniqueness) to the ongoing struggle toward human enlightenment and grace. One must transform themselves, not others. They despised labels as well since they were a means of thought and social control, and a mob mentality. That "envy is ignorance, imitation suicide" (Emerson).

1:36 pretty rigorous. I'm glad he pointed out the difference between correlation and causation. People often forget that. Also glad he pointed out that a sample doesn't necessarily represent the whole. It's important to note that a subject denoted as 'regressive' is so at any scale, regarding any of its aspects. Furthermore, any that criticise the 'regressive' Ideology but have features of their own that overlap with it must indeed be regressive at heart and the prefix 'neo' shall be affixed. I'm not religious, though it is stated in the bible 'a bad tree cannot bear good fruit'. So when Osama Bin Laden scorns global warming, we can be confident that 'global warming', the 'theory' should be held in as much contempt as we hold this man himself.

It is so easy to critique relativism when you offer no alternate solution and completely ignore the entire history of epistemology.

wow, what a great channel with high-quality videos through and through. thanks man!

Has Stephen Hicks ever talked to Douglas Murray? He has a lot of experience with the left in academia. I think they'd have a good conversation about it

Hey, I really like your clips. I would like it if you would put the name of the interviewer in your descriptions along with that of the interviewee. I appreciate the links to the originals and everything, I just think it would be nice for the person that elicited the insight to get credit as well in the description. Or maybe I'm too lazy to click through to find out. Either way, I think it would be a nice addition. Thanks for what you're doing, I appreciate anyone who is on the side of freedom of speech (and thought! Seriously, they would punish you for thinking wrong if they could).

@StephenHicksPhilosopher

6 жыл бұрын

The interviewer here is Mark Michael Lewis.

I am not a postmodernism admirer to say the least but there are very few videos that question whether their claims of privilege have any weight. History is littered with atrocities committed by imperialism, Colonialism and slavery and their huge impact on culture, languages, psychology, curricula, politics,... which drastically impacted many places in the world and gave unfair and unequal advantages on other cultures. So why wouldn't the first, second and third generations of those who benefited from that history come out and say what they think about it. Because constantly brandishing this "I am not guilty of what my ancestors did" banner clearly isn't working just like the "I'm not ashamed anymore of not wanting to be like you" banner isn't. Reality is that an unfair history, whether you like it or not, dictated many people's lives and many of times cruelly or too leniently. Things are going to change!

excellent

Wish you ran some noise reduction on this cleaned the sound up as it was worth some attention.

Humans are so smart, they can divide themselves in conceptual groups of ideology.

nailed it

Great content and insight. However, the recording was so bad I couldn't make out parts of the conversation. To whoever conducted this interview: Please either use better microphones or use audio correction software before releasing another like it. This will help your audience better digest this excellent content. Thank you.

The Tyranny of Words (1938) by Stuart Chase Dead white European male: Alfred Korzybski Science and Sanity; General Semantics

Identity politics is intrinsically racism, sexism, ageism any many other isms. So it isn't the extreme right that has a monopoly on racism.

Who controls the definition of mental health? Think about that deeply.

Thanks. I'm just waiting to see the post modernists requiring as many book written by geniouses as idiots.

Great segment. Who s the interviewer?

@StephenHicksPhilosopher

6 жыл бұрын

Mark Michael Lewis.

¿Is epistemology the study of what should i do cognitively? and ¿Is ethics the study of what should i do extisnentialy?

@virvisquevir3320

6 жыл бұрын

Tulio - Epistemology is the study of what we can know. Ethics is the study of what we should do.

I strongly agree with Prof. Hicks, and this is a quibble, but I wish he'd check his use of "right" as an all-purpose filler-word. He probably uses it 100 times or more over this video.

This is great. So we’re in 3rd wave Postmodernism fo to speak.

I need help understanding postmodernist epistemology. How can they make any assertions, or rank order any concepts or behavior when they reject the laws of identity and the excluded middle as well as the principle of explosion? I understand that there are forms of logic that do away with one or more of these principles of bivalence for the sake of models that are more or less fine grained than standard form. However, that is not what post modernists are doing. They are rejecting all of these things and yet still trying to make normative, prescriptive arguments. How can this be?

Third generation post modernism in the 1980s was described as a return to classicism.

Politics will to power.

You can check your privilege if you want to play their ideological game, or you can tell them to naff off.

But isn't justice in essence really a system of compensation? I don't know if postmodernism (whatever that is really) has much to do with it. This is a fascinating argument, and I do think there is some credence to it, but I'm not sure that I'm completely buying the whole thing.

we are completely fucked up by a few of PHDs Philosopher and University Professors. how the fuck is this possible. I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

Does anyone understand that stating that there are no absolute truths is not at all what Hicks is saying? He's conflating a viewpoint with an action to a terminal point. This is so easy to point out that I'm not sure why anyone hasn't yet....

The guy on the left looks like he's about to cry

Wow he nailed it. That's exactly the same as what's happening in my work

@ 1:15 The future of humankind, in terms of sheer political power- belongs to low achievers. (By this, I mean those whose feelings of self worth must be coddled unconditionally, or they will cause a great stir.) The high achievers - those who live under the burden of their own standards, and who would resent being indulged and placated, will, if intent upon long term survival as a species, segregate themselves from this rabble - with cheerful dissimulation and courageous affability...

All I can hear Hicks say is that postmodernists made great contributions to our understanding of epistemology. Then universities made curriculum and timetable adjustments to achieve proportional representation (not specifically a postmodern concept). Now, Nietzschean and Randian strategies are used to leverage power for the supposed powerless. Hence, neither the purported second or third generation is postmodernist. At best this video should be titled "contemporary power dynamics in universities in the wake of poststructuralism".

James Lindsay’s book cynical theories seems to me to argue the same exact point. So both of them seem to have identified the same stages steps of postmodernism…

I really want to hear from someone defending Post Modernism. I've never heard of Derrida or the others. How can they really be taken so seriously by intelligent faculty on campuses.

@RalphTGP

6 жыл бұрын

Power.

This is all Hegel's fault

It sounds like Second wave is built around Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" essay. So, then, the Frankfurt school would be second wave postmodernism?

If you feel you stand to have something to lose, you will hate this video and any video by JBP.

is the guy on the left a computer?

When all this came at me at school I just found legion of the unhappy. These deliberate folks determined to be sad. I said "fuck that," and got happier than them.

In the end it results in taking other peoples shit. Not your own shit, others. They become the arbiters. They become like God.

6:00 In other words kill success so failure thrives. Sounds brilliant for ruling class to sucker working class into doing. Im losing hope.

I never met a privileged person who felt guilty about it. Where are these people?

@dragons_red

6 жыл бұрын

john miller Hollywood actors for one...

@gregoryhemsley3246

6 жыл бұрын

Dragon's Red I don’t think that’s guilt. I don’t see anyone in Hollywood giving away their wealth or making contracts that don’t suit them. Or doing much else than yammer. There are a few exceptions but that would not be “Hollywood” then would it! If privilege is wealth and a louder voice then these people have that in spades. But guilt? Not from what I’m seeing.

It occurs to me that the Common Core curriculum is based on post modernism... as post modernism is defined here.

Since they don't beleive in truth and individual, they world is only about power hiearchies represented by collectives.

Both Hicks and Peterson like to watch themselves talk. And hear themselves talk. And both enjoy their nice hair, relatively substantial stature, well-aged, rugged good looks, and throngs of swooning young men and women. I think they both may be homosexuals. Nice vid thx.

@willnitschke

6 жыл бұрын

And morons apparently waste everyone 's time because they love to re-read the horseshit they type, apparently.

They cut the video short. Just before they're going to talk about the gulags. Very disappointing.

This chat may seem a well counter argument/refutation for the ones who haven’t read anything from the thinkers that are mentioned however, neither Foucault nor Lyotard were Marxist and the perverse thoughts on Nietzche’s discourse is completely wrong. In Antichrist; Nietzche despised pity and he believed that it degenerated the society. Because it was like being Christ and trying to sell the virtues. (Altough his father was a man of religion he looked down on Christianity and Budhism because they were telling people to quit from living a lavish life “plus if they were strong they were pitying and confessing the sins they have done” and sending them to temples or in other terms he said that it was making them to become nihlists) If you feel that notion(being strong and because of that pitying the weak) than it is certain that you may empathise and than feel bad about yourself because you are strong and this would spread the weakness all over. He rejected this idea and (also nihilism) encouraged the idea of being better than others which he called “Ubermensch” (Later on Nazi’s used this idea to create their freak aryan race “which they couldn’t”) When we come to Foucault and Lyotard part; Foucault tried to answer the question of power relations of course in his private life it can be seen that he was strongly cheering the idea of “revolution” but he was not a Marxist he tried to point out the underlying discourses on the conditions of how the minorities, outcasts, mentally ill etc. became to be as they were in his time. For that he recoined the term archeology used it in his own way, than he borrowed genealogy which was from Nietzche and than he looked at power relations. Unlike Marx’s or Hegel’s idea of power he said that “Power relations are everywhere you can find them between husband to wife, wife to husband, wife to child etc. but the most important difference is he said when there is a force than there is a resistance” (I didn’t mention panopticon but it you can look at that concept) He never came up with solutions to the problems. What he did was just pointing out situations that were dire for him and coining new terms. (I am talking about his discourse, in his real life he fought for the terrible conditions of prisons in France) I’ll tell Lyotard briefly he combined Freud’s and Marx’s ideas and found missing spots criticised those thinkers. He was against political views because he thought that reality is based on singular events and there would be no rational one idea that can explain that thought. He was against political thoughts because politics is generally thought to be constructed on accurate representations of reality.

Our curriculum doesn’t really matter? What your afraid of is something else?

Ogillar honom totalt. Är för Postmodernism

Well if all narratives are equally true then how did some come to dominate?

It's not clear that Hicks is aware of the difference between epistemological skepticism and varieties of metaphysical antirealism. A skeptic would question whether we can know the truth. An antirealist may hold that there's no such thing as objective truth. Postmodernists tend to fall into the latter category.

If you negate truth, what is your goal the next day!

this sacrificing the (recently) stronger for weaker is happening in a massive way with european immigration

@RalphTGP

6 жыл бұрын

I have commented on that above.

so whats stage 4?

@jakelivingstone5747

7 жыл бұрын

I don't want to know

@virvisquevir3320

6 жыл бұрын

MyLifeForAuir87 - We all become mindless zombies, worker drones, we all wear diapers, have a soother in our mouth, we all become comfortably numb.

Steven Hicks is the best and clearest expositor of philosophy I know. If he has the fortitude to understand and explain the likes of Derrida I’m impressed.

They were wrong when they said there is no truth even though its in the motto of the schools. Romans 1:22 - Professing to be wise, they became fools,"....Proverbs 1:7 - The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, But fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 9:10 - “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

The weak inheriting the Earth

I suspect left guy's Apple earbuds are being worn backwards.

Right? Right? Right?

This guy needs to reprint his book, its like $500 on Amazon

who's here from jordan peterson

Stephen Hicks helps me become a total convert to postmodernism.

The main problem with philosophers is that they realise that they don't have a proper job and live in an academic bubble.

Didn't know Rick Springfield was into this philosophy stuff. Who da thunk it.

Postmodernism almost sounds Nietzscheian when put into the context of conflicting systems of values.

Near the start of the video, the speaker more or less assumes that postmodernism is informed by Marxism. I think this is roughly a case of begging the question. Perhaps his arguments follow, but there is no apparent basis for the assumption.

Ok, so when is anyone going to actually define and prove to me what postmodernism is? We lie - lie to ourselves, we try disguising ourselves, but in the end we are ever the same - beginning again, for to win is to lose, and the mind: sane is insane.

@willnitschke

6 жыл бұрын

Sounds very Post Modernist. Black = white.

Right?