Stephen Hicks Explaining Postmodernism - A Review Pt.1

0:00 Countdown
0:52 Introduction
2:23 Author & Context
10:33 Book Review & Chapter 1
13:29 The "Postmodern Vanguard"
15:47 Richard Rorty and The Correspondence Theory of Truth
24:14 Modern and Postmodern
31:37 Francis Bacon
34:53 Rene Descartes
38:30 John Locke
40:35 "Pre-Modernism" Faith, Reason and Mysticism
47:48 Pre-Modernism vs Modernism
53:56 Pre-Modernism vs The Enlightenment
1:06:00 Modernism vs Postmodernism
1:07:40 Postmodern Academic Themes
1:26:24 Were Hume and Kant "Anti-Enlightenment Thinkers"?
1:36:06 Summary
1:37:20 Conclusion & Thanks to Patrons

----

Tips:

[satyasyasatyasya]

Such a garbage book. I like the debunk by Jonas Čeika/CCK Philosophy. Its astounding nonsense like this gets around.

[realSAPERE_AUDE]

This was much more interesting than I expected it to be. One would like to assume that an individual with a PHD in philosophy would properly represent those that they criticize but apparently that would be a terrible assumption to make. By the way, did you notice you said my name in the Kant section towards the end?

[bengreen]

hmm. disappointed by the lack of gargoyles.

[braden_m]

I hope by “premodern” he literally just means “the era immediately before modernism” cuz…uh…the Aristotelians, the Stoics, the Academic Skeptics and Pyrrhonians? What about them? In what way does their philosophy begin with religiosity and mysticism?

[derkalamar]

I had always heard that hicks' book was sophomoric but i was never aware of childishly bad it was until I watched this video. Thanks for reading it so we don't have to :D

[bouncycastle]

1:12:00 I have no idea what Hicks is advocating but that seems like a pretty extreme reaction. He mentions how kids are educated to be sensitive to race, sex, etc and you respond by asking if he thinks kids should be taught to hate people of other race, sex, etc... From my perspective, for example, teaching a relative indifference is probably the best long-term strategy. I have no idea why you swung so hard in the opposite direction when there are so many alternatives.

[RosemaryFehlner]

I have not had my coffee yet, so my brain read that as “Explainering Postmodernism.” I giggled and then reread it. Lol.

[BrendaCreates]

That well known postmodernist Immanuel Kant. 😆

[uninspired]

I enjoy the extended content, but I think I lost the forest for the trees on this one. if someone asked I dont think I could reasonably steelman what this guy thinks post modernism is.

[Swishead]

I love the words he uses to describe 'postmodern' views of stuff that he likes: Christopher Columbus is 'insensitive'. Western canon is 'intolerant'. This is what happens when you think you've distilled the core essence of an intellectual project so that you can recast it entirely in your own terms, with no reference to what that project actually says. You end up saying some utterly mad shit. Ironically, many postmodern thinkers would be critical of this approach to begin with.

[Knaeben]

This book pretends to put the reader in a position of "reason and logic" against "those relativists", while at the same time sneaking in an abjectly relativist position. You don't come out of it with any information at all about what postmodernism is - the unsuspecting reader comes out of it with a license to label literally anything they disagree with as "postmodernism." All you need is an emotional reaction, no facts required.

Written by an academic prostitute, it is true "designer propaganda." The author knows he's giving misinformation.

[jakek.]

I’m sure the book is shit. But I must admit I ain’t too sure Nathan is too up on “postmodernism”

[sandels]

I'm all for Postmodernism. I would like to postmen to have flying cars and space lasers