Stephen Hicks: How Postmodernists Turn Good-Willed People Against Themselves

#Hicks #postmodernism

- If you like the content, subscribe!

[ganjaericco]

"True, all sorts of attempts are being made to level out glaring
social contrasts by appealing to people’s idealism, enthusiasm and ethical conscience; but, characteristically, one forgets to apply the necessary self-criticism, to answer the question: Who is making the idealistic demand? Is it, perchance, someone who jumps over his own shadow in order to hurl himself avidly on an idealistic program that promises him a welcome alibi? How much respectability and apparent morality is there, cloaking with deceptive colors a very different inner world of darkness? One would first like to be assured that the man who talks of ideals is himself ideal, so that his words and deeds are more than they seem." - Carl Jung - The Undiscovered Self, pages 72/73

[thriceconcussed]

What always seemed contradictory about PM, to me, is that the philosophy is a result of cultural relativism, but concludes its central argument with a moral imperative. The proponents of PM make the metaphysical claim that power structures are the ultimate reality, then argue that an agent ought to respond to that reality by fighting against those in power. Why? If, as they claim, there is no such thing as objective truth, and morality is only a means of control, then why should someone fight for the oppressed? Picking a side is arbitrary, if PM is true. Moreover, isn't the moral imperative to fight for the oppressed a product of the European liberal power structure, and thus, bad for the oppressed? Post Modernism is absurd, the entire argument defeats itself by rejecting objectivity, which leads to a series of nonsensical premises. If truth is subjective, then I have no reason to believe that it is true either.
When I was an undergraduate I refused to, as a serious philosophy student, write a response paper to the Post Modernists' central premises. I went to the class professor's office, and made the case that an analytic philosopher accomplishes nothing by engaging in a discourse with a thesis that rejects logic itself. The analytic school of philosophical inquiry presupposes objective truth, and uses formal logic as its primary, in fact only, tool. Therefore, no legitimate debate can occur between analytic philosophers and PMs. Neither party agrees to what methodology a discourse between them would use to measure the validity of their respective claims, nor do they agree on what these outcome if the discourse should be. My professor allowed me to write about something else.

[davydacounsellor]

Post modernism " smiling assassin's"

[apm]

The Philosopher's Song

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'bout the raisin' of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away,
'alf a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
and Hobbes was fond of his dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.

[Truth_Hurts]

Hicks should come to South Africa it’s a postmodernist Mecca.

[xelacolumbus]

they make no sense at all, it really make me crazy.

[moseybear]

Dr. Hicks and Dr. Peterson have changed my life ... for the better. Thank you both. I reference your videos and book ("Postmodernism") often. You've changed more lives than you realize ..for the better. Thank you.

[debean]

That "force" is the dark realm.

[EmperorsNewWardrobe]

5:10 - 6:28 If you only have 78 seconds to listen, this bit is it. The main tension.

[joshposlusny]

I think what philosophers are searching for in understanding the current age is this: human behavior used to dictate and define the current age of philosophy. What post modernism has done is allowed a philosophy in turn to dictate and define human behavior.

[a]

People who refuse to be working class are fighting the working class (“for the working class...”)

[amichaelthomas]

Who is the picture in the background? Looks like Morrissey

[ronpaulrevered]

Regarding power dynamics; Is there really a doubt as to the existence of political power?

[markasp]

"Smart people are turning on postmodernism"
<- was already happening 4 decades ago.

[idiomaxiom]

I don't think post modernism is sopmething we can avoid, its something we have to move through. Thinkers like JBP rely on a lot of post modern ideas to articulate theirs.

[michaelgeiger]

Our natural (and learned) benevolence is being taken advantage of. For me, this manifests in my learned confusion when confronted with the decision whether to “help” someone in distress, say, in a car accident. I would stand aside for fear of being sued for trying to help because a litigious person would problematize my efforts ex post facto.

[billmelater]

Its lazy virtue, much like Socilism. It's easier to follow inane hashtag campaigns and abdicate the responsibility for consistant and logical thought just as it is easier to be generous with other people's money.

[slydogdirty]

Thank You.


William Wallace:
“I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my nonwoke patriotic countrymen,  here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And free man you are! What will you do with that freedom? Will you fight?”

Many random peons:
“No! No….”

Some random peon:
“Against that? No! We will run, and we will live!”

William Wallace:
“Aye! Fight and you may die. Run and you will live, at least awhile. And dying in your beds many years from now,  would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell the .01% and their minions that they may take our lives but they will never take our FREEDOM!”
ALBA GU Long live America, Long Live Canada, Long live " the WEST", and Freedom for eternity.

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion", Edmond Burke

" The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmond Burke

"Thank you YouTube/CCP for the unjust Shadowbans", from a random peon.

[mustang]

I get an error. Did somebody get offended?

[johnpepin]

Here's an idea...
If one really believes the word is a power battle and wants to make it fair... doesn't it follow to make the ground as even as possible? Like in a laissez faire system where no one is allowed to get political leverage? As opposed to a socialist one where the goods of society are distributed by political favor?