What is Postmodern Philosophy of Rationality? (Foucault, Beall, and Restall)

An explanation of two postmodern challenges to logic, rationality, and reason from Michel Foucault, JC Beall, and Greg Restall. The video explores Foucault's challenge from madness as well as Beall & Restall's logical pluralism.

Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Roman Leventov, NBA_Ruby, Antybodi, Federico Galvão, Mike Gloudemans, Eugene SY, Andrew Sullivan, Antoinemp1, Andreas Kurz, Ismail Fagundes, Joao Sa, Ploney, Tyler James, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!

Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Collier-MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Dictionary of Continental Philosophy, and more! (#Postmodernism #Rationality)

[VulpesAboutVulpes]

Hi ! I really like your videos but there's a thing about the sound that is really unpleasant to hear. Your voice have a lot of dynamics and you really have to add compression to it on your software. That's a shame because your content is great but the sound is sometimes barely audible and sometimes painfully loud. You can find how to use a compressor all over the Internet. Cheers from France

[hckytwn]

So, if Post-Modernism itself is based on a logical argument (i.e. Godel’s Incompleteness), and yet it says logic has no basis, then shouldn’t we discard Post-Modernism as baseless?

[MLMRC]

audio isn't audiable. super highs and super lows. too bad, it seemed like a good topic

[Pfhorrest]

Critical rationalism completely solves the problem of rationalism itself being unjustified, because it explicitly allows (in fact requires) belief without justification, so long as it has thus far survived any attempts at *dis* justification. So on a critical rationalist account you don't need to prove (critical) rationalism correct in order for you to have warrant to employ it; you need only lack conclusive reason to reject it. But since a *reason* to *reject* it would itself be employing a critical rationalist methodology... good luck with that.

[Sigdowner]

Seems to me this sort of navel-gazing is only possible within a society built on 7000 years of civilization that lets a man be so sheltered as to think logic is derived from nothing. Thanks for the videos, Carneades, they are very helpful.

[Dezturbed]

Doesn't the process of evolution itself prove the value of rationality?

Not only it evolution a rational process in and of itself but it has entwined a chemical benefit for growing our rational understanding, while punishing those who don't. As well as having these benefits it also increases survivability.
Aren't these both illustrations of that truth behind rationality.

[InventiveHarvest]

Russell: Finds a single impossibility theorem in logic.

Foucault: This means I can say anything!! Woo hooo Marxism rules!!!

[veritopian]

1. Reason and madness are not opposites - in reality: reason's opposite is emotion.
It's facts vs feelings: Do you do things because it is right, or because it feels right? "Madness" is a ridiculously vague word to use.

2. Logic is founded on observations of reality, not on assumptions, or "faith".
E.g. Identity - A is not B. A is not B in reality. It's an observable fact.

It's incorrect to say "No one logic is objectively correct". The fact that people can invent other systems of "logic" doesn't detract from actual logic.

[GeorgWilde]

"Rationality is assumed to win without argument." - WHAT?! Rationality IS when you do arguments lol. It's hard to believe this confusion is not manufactured intentionally.

[InventiveHarvest]

Logic is the philosophers' folly. Economics is a much stronger system of reasoning. Yes, it is incomplete, but it can answer the philosophers- questions.