Why he is a charlatan. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fXilqop-mIarp2g.html

The actual argument is not that everything is subjective. The argument is that many Post Modern philosophers deny that objective reality exist. I don't know if that statement is true or not but what i know is that Stephen R. C. Hicks is politicly motivated. So for him, everything is subjective to profit his political views. Philo (wisdom) sophy (love), he prefers his love of politics over wisdom. That video explains it well, the first page in his book is filled with mistakes.... FIRST PAGE. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fXilqop-mIarp2g.html

There are some things in life that, no matter how hard we try to make them funny, just aren’t. Comedians can make a joke about these things, but these jokes will fall flat! The problem is, society may not agree on what those things are, that are not funny, I mean.

@@vingag128 that video essay you link to is rather unconvincing.

If you guys have the balls get Curtis yarvin, please don't be afraid you have had worse

Depends for whom. Takes two to tango. Do you have aims and values independent of a socially fabricated narrative, because well then you're free. You're even free of violence and the world doesn't make you crazy. Choose wisely.

@@j_freed conversation, reasoned argument and claims that are demonstrable is all we have. If one side will not agree to use these three things to communicate,then our choices on how to proceed are limited. I don't see a peaceful decade approaching and freedom almost always costs blood. I am still hopeful that reason can still triumph but still a little pessimistic about peoples ability to apply it

Yes...otherwise, why was civilization created by humans?

j freed actually it doesn’t , if one side has the power to do what it wants, it invariably will.

And we’re at the point where the post-modernist/Critical Theorists say logic is white supremacy as is mathematics.

I post things like this on Fb - no one watches or comments. I post a picture of my left pinky toe and I get a hundred likes and 50 comments. Sigh.

No shit. But this works in the other direction as well.

destroy BBC. Reject institutions. Reject, ignore, speak your mind, object, say loudly. You will be surprised. That's what Central-Eastern Europe learned and that's what freed us from communism. The thing is...even acolytes of the system don't believe in the system. because it is laughably bonkers.

@@dohlecarnett1866 I actually agree on that. But if you check which "side" has more resources, a bigger 'propaganda machine' behind them ... then you might see that the playing field has been uneven to put it lightly ... check the google, microsoft edge, facebook and all sorts of feeds on your device ... full of left , almost far-left propaganda, not one single. remotely conservative news source. Don't get me wrong, I agree on some left-wing issue, they have a point here and there. And they are terribly wrong on some other issues ... but not one single conservative argument?? That's my issue.

@@904daniela don't worry they are reading it, most people are just cowards to attach their opinion to yours when it comes to more complex, societal issues ... because when they respond their "friends" and colleagues will see that too.

@DragonFox If it wasn't clear enough, I think John means calling each other gay as part of a joke or insult.

He isn't. He's a very poor scholar, like Peterson, and therefore it's all too easy for people to legitimately dismiss his work

@@kcl4364 Only if you have decided in advance that they must be wrong because you don't like what they say :D

@@cosmicdrambler3384 No, it's because Hicks has a piss poor understanding of Kant and his reasoning falls to pieces after that. Peterson's critique of PoMo is entirely taken from Hicks' book. It's widely recognised as garbage scholarship. I loathe SJW types as much as the next person and respect Peterson's stance against them to a point but these guys are genuinely hack scholars and often are unhelpful in combating this ideology

@@kcl4364 Can you give a particular example of what they got wrong? What would you suggest as a better critique of PoMo?

@@cosmicdrambler3384 Hicks claim that Kant is counter-Enlightenment is laughable. He contends that Kant's philosophy is subjectivist yet part of the point of the First Critique (and German Idealism more widely) is to save objectivity hence Beiser's subheading to his book German Idealism "The struggle against subjectivism". Hicks (and later Peterson) seem to believe that Foucault and Lyotard drawing connection between Knowledge/Reason and Power is somehow a condemnation of the former due to being connected with the later. This is a ridiculous misreading of those thinkers. There is nothing inherently bad with power as such for these thinkers, it can be good or bad ( in fact Peterson almost parrots Foucault when he talks about competence as power). Foucault's project in Discipline and Punish is in part a Nietzschean critique of the very same Marxist notion of power that Hicks and Peterson lazily believe Foucault is espousing. Neither Foucault or Lyotard were Marxist at the time of their postmodern phase. Lyotard lost many Marxist friends after writing Libidinal Economy.

Oink oink!

Best comment so far!

@@just_another32 Curious if you missed the apropos literary allusion....

If you mean Animal Farm, read it when I was 7, big fan of Orwell. But if there was some other meaning nested in there then yes I missed it. And just thought I'd oink!

Doesn't it say some animals?

Except he's full of b.s.

@@James-ll3jb How so?

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fXilqop-mIarp2g.html Plus this review given here in several parts: Part 1:A Review of Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks Matt McManus Introduction It might seem unusual to review a book that was originally published in 2004. But Explaining Postmodernism has enjoyed a recent resurgence of popularity. Jordan Peterson has praised the book, and Hicks himself has become a well-known commentator on postmodernism, although he has more than his fair share of zealous critics. I’ve been writing and reading a lot on the topic of postmodernity-particularly what I call postmodern conservatism-of late. While I admire some of the postmodern authors discussed by Hicks, I have generally been critical of postmodernism as a whole. Moreover, while I am personally affiliated with the Left and disagree with Hicks’ objectivist political outlook, I agree that postmodernism and its various activist offshoots wield too much cultural influence, especially in academia. I fall into a category I have elsewhere called the post-postmodern Left. So I read Hicks’ book to see if he offered any especially useful intellectual weapons with which to push back against the pomo dragon. Unfortunately, Explaining Postmodernism is full of misreadings, suppositions, rhetorical hyperbole and even flat out factual errors. Moreover, these problems aren’t limited to Hicks’ interpretation of postmodern authors, who are really only the focus of the beginning and end of the book. It extends across much of the modern Western canon, and includes very crude characterizations of seminal thinkers such as Hume, Kant, Hegel, Popper, Wittgenstein and many others. For Hicks, virtually the entire post-Descartes philosophical canon is apparently committed to irrationalist collectivism.

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz Hicks review Part 2: The Enlightenment and Its Discontents The book’s problems begin on the very first page, with Hicks’ list of seminal postmodern authors. He includes obvious picks such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard, three of Hicks’ four horsemen of postmodernity. But others-Richard Rorty and Jacques Lacan-have a debatable association with postmodernity and some of those included were even outright critics of postmodernism, such as the feminist legal scholar Catherine Mackinnon, author of “Points Against Postmodernism,” and Luce Irigaray, whose work is a frequent target of postmodern feminists due to its alleged essentialism. These problems persist throughout the book. Hicks completely misinterprets Lyotard’s quotation about Saddam Hussein in his 1997 book Postmodern Fables. Lyotard claims that, “Saddam Hussein is a product of Western departments of state and big companies,” which Hicks interprets to mean that Hussein is a “victim and spokesman for victims of American imperialism the world over.” In fact, Lyotard’s essay discusses the early support Hussein received from the American government during his prolonged war against Iran in the 1980s. These interpretive problems immediately make one suspicious that this book may be less about explaining postmodernism in a liberal and charitable way and more about lumping together and dismissing all forms of left-wing criticism that may owe an intellectual debt to continental European thought. Hicks claims that postmodernism is defined by four features. First, it is a metaphysically anti-realist position, which holds that it is “impossible to speak meaningfully about an independent reality.” Second, postmodernism is epistemologically skeptical of the possibility of acquiring objective knowledge about the world. Third, it is methodologically collectivist, regarding human nature as primarily defined by group affiliations. And, fourth, postmodernism is politically committed to protecting those groups which postmodernists regard as victims. This is an admirably clear account of postmodernism, but it is also problematic. While one might be able to link any given postmodern author with one or more of Hicks’ features, not all-or even most authors-fit neatly into these categories. Hicks talks about postmodernism as a whole, but seems uninterested in the thinking of individual authors, who might problematize his tidy narrative generalizations. For instance, you might call Michel Foucault a metaphysical anti-realist and an epistemological skeptic. But he was notably individualistic in his moral and aesthetic outlook, celebrating counterculture and anti-state movements, and had a mixed history of supporting political movements oriented around group identity. Sadly, Hicks’ tendency to fudge philosophical traditions and history isn’t limited to postmodern authors. Hicks also badly misrepresents Medieval and Enlightenment thinkers who don’t ascribe to his own philosophical and political preferences. Hicks’ caricature of Medieval thinkers as “super naturalist, mystical, collectivist, and feudalistic” is extremely questionable. Virtually any scholastic thinker of note, from Anselm to Avicenna, had complex thoughts on the relationship between reason and faith, the individual and society, and so on. Thomas Aquinas would have found it odd to discover that he was a “collectivist,” given that so much of his work dealt with individual human happiness, and that his natural law theory contained early arguments for placing limitations on the state. Things get even worse when Hicks discusses the Enlightenment, which ironically seems to be the only period of Western philosophy for which he has any fondness. Hicks argues that the characteristics of the Enlightenment include: metaphysical realism, epistemological concern with reason and experience, understanding the human being as a tabula rasa, ethical individualism, support for liberal capitalism, and so on. But this reads less like a list of characteristics shared by all Enlightenment thinkers, and more like a narrow summary of John Locke’s greatest hits. Of course John Locke is a seminal Enlightenment thinker, who argued that a human being was a tabula rasa and learned from experience, and who supported private property and individual rights. But Locke himself argued extensively against another Enlightenment author, Thomas Hobbes, who supported an absolute sovereign’s entitlement to trample individual and property rights if necessary. Similar problems emerge when you try to jam any other major Enlightenment thinker into Hicks’ list of characteristics. Descartes, whom Hicks praises, certainly did not believe that reason was largely drawn from experience. Indeed, Descartes’ entire skeptical argument was about how all experience of the external world might be illusory. Spinoza was not especially individualistic either: his Ethics is a manual on how to stoically accept that we are all a part of, and determined by, God. Even Adam Smith, the author of The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, would have rejected the arguments that human beings are blank slates, and that it is an unquestionably good thing for all people to be individualistically self-interested.

@@dingleberrysnigglefritz Hicks review Part 3: The Counter-Enlightenment Perhaps the single weakest part of Hicks’ book is his account of the so-called Counter-Enlightenment. Hicks claims that Counter-Enlightenment thinkers attacked the foundations of reason, therefore laying the intellectual foundations of postmodernism. But his reading of many of these thinkers is very shoddy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his treatment of Immanuel Kant, whom Hicks argues is somehow a Counter-Enlightenment thinker. This is all the more ironic, given Kant’s argument in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals that, “man-and in general every rational being-exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion.” Hicks makes the baffling argument that Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason is a skeptical epistemological attack on empirical realism and the possibility of true knowledge of the real world, designed to shore up Kant’s religious faith against the attacks of Enlightenment science. This is simply not true. Kant’s entire project was to show that empirical reason was an essential part of how human beings develop a comprehensive understanding of the world. As P. F. Strawson has argued, the Kantian project is about demonstrating the productive “bounds of sense” through which we interpret the empirical world, i.e. to demonstrate that, although we never have access to “things in themselves,” independently of our cognitive processes, the fact that these processes are common to all human beings gives form to a world that looks the same to everyone a posteriori. This makes science possible-and, indeed, necessary. Moreover, Kant’s first Critique culminates in an account of the antinomies of reason, an argument which frustrated centuries of theological attempts to prove Christian dogma. As for Hicks’ later comments that Kant devalued individualism in favor of dutiful sacrifice for others, or that Kant believed war was a necessary feature of human life: these are astonishing accusations to level against the author of “Perpetual Peace,” who claimed that each individual’s autonomy granted him an absolute dignity, putting him “beyond price.” These interpretive issues speak to a deeper problem in the book. When Hicks argues that “any thinker who claims that reason cannot know reality is not fundamentally an advocate of reason,” he is taking an exceptionally narrow view of the history of Western philosophy. Essentially, any thinker who is not an empirical realist like Hicks is apparently “not an advocate of reason.” So, when Kant praises reason but claims it has limits, in Hicks’ eyes he becomes a Counter-Enlightenment thinker and a precursor to postmodernism. For Hicks, Hegel-who claimed that fragmentary subjective opinion must gradually give way to “absolute knowing”-argues that “reality is an entirely subjective creation.” Heidegger, who argues that metaphysics must end and be replaced by “thinking,” is summarized by Hicks as believing that “the ultimate revelation [of existence] is of the truth of Judeo-Christian and Hegelian metaphysics.” Hicks even argues that logical positivists and philosophers of mathematics, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, paved the way for Karl Popper, W. V. O. Quine and Thomas Kuhn, who, according to Hicks, argue that “we are stuck inside a subjective system with no direct access to reality.”

i love most of george carlin ... different time - not sure re disparagement of fat americans ... altho it is v funny if youve seen that one must admit.

...and they call themselves Lenny Bruce's fans!

@@moodyonroody5313 and right there you fall into postmodernism...

@@moodyonroody5313 And what's wrong with disparagement of unhealthy, self-destructing addictions exactly? Those lazy fat pigs don't respect themselves, why should others respect their bad habits?

Why? Carlin aint right wing is he?

He is a very poor scholar. His book on postmodernism is terrible and therefore of limited use in combating the SJW crazies unfortunately.

@@kcl4364 this is the only thing I have seen of his and haven't read any of his books, what I did like is that he was more calm and collected than others discussing these issues, for example while I personally like people like James Lindsay or Jordan Peterson, I can see how sometimes their tone could be off putting to some. This guy just seemed so relaxed.

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

It is a terrible bit of scholarship. Truly terrible. And I don't have any time at all for postmodernism. But Hicks is not a good scholar at all. Watch this critique: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fXilqop-mIarp2g.html

Stephen Hicks is great. This podcast is real informative.

@@wodenravens You made your point in, at least, one other thread. No need to work your way down through the comments, shitting on everyone's opinions. Just sayin'

@@skwest Even the Mises Institute (one of the most libertarian thinktanks on the planet) thinks that Hicks' scholarship is piss-poor. Personally, I think that people in this comment thread deserve to know just how poor he is at scholarship. I'm not shitting on everyone's opinions. I am here to discuss the topic of the interview. 99% of the comments here are about how great Hicks is. Yet you are moaning about the 1% that isn't. Sounds like you want a safe space.

@@wodenravens No, not at all. But the fact is that it now appears that my remark was premature. I made it through all of the comments (there's fewer than 300), because I was actually interested in this very subject, i.e. opinions regarding Hicks' authority on the subject. Well, after seeing those couple of threads, nearly in succession, with your pushback, I anticipated, wrongly, it would end up dominating the rest. I would delete my other comment, but since I've addressed it here, I'll just leave it. Cheers!

Haidt is in a different league

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

Yes, I had repeatedly scroll back to review sections. Needed a lot of concentration. But he also did it so well that we need to get the book for the detail. Very smart in the best possible way.

Me too...it was compelling.

To paraphrase: Given that 2 previous guests on this show made errors, we can reasonably conclude that nothing that ANY guest on this show ever says could possibly be correct, let alone insightful. That's typical SJM (social "justice" monster) "reasoning." This is the kind of "thinking" that results from an education (really, INDOCTRINATION) system that conditiins students on WHAT to "think," not HOW to (clearly) think. Alternatively: Wow, it's almost like Ryan O'Neill doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about!!

try Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon

Unless we need to reevaluate how we measure intelligence. Just because you know big words and can argue rhetorically doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

The irony is that the smart, evil people rationalize idiotic ideas and garnish them in order for them to be attractive to stupid people.

@@duartecosta2043 great point

Postmodernism is like the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

Imo it's the root cause,there's alot of other factors but living through it all,the world changed and not for the better.

Exactly. Postmodernism is a condition brought on by capitalism and sent into overdrive by media technology.

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

Books won’t fix anything....a man might though 😂

That’s what I keep having a hard time with. How did these radical woke spinsters get through universities without having their viewpoint challenged and dismantled? Or did they just scream ‘you are racist’ when challenged?

Fifty years of the total destruction of social cohesion, the family, religion, degeneracy taught to children, and the total annihilation of our history and culture. I still hate them whatever they write in ivory towers. PS And if you never had the absolute misfortune of a university education, the Foucault he described as clever, delighted in knowingly spreading aids to multiple partners, and spent long periods in insane asylums. So of course leftards love him. They love all degeneracy.

@@billsimms2511 It ultimately started 75 years ago when Hitler took control of Germany. When he took power, the communist intellectuals escaped to America, where they have been working for the past 75 years to destroy us from our foundation by promoting the removal of our national values, which are all but extinct now. This is what happens when you trust people that are in love with the sound of their own voices, IE, intellectuals. That being said, fascism, as evil as it may be, is the only thing that has ever beat communism, as communism ultimately succeeds where they can manipulate the people to vote for it.

@@billsimms2511 "Media Hit Pieces" tend to work FAR MORE EFFECTIVELY to silence your opposition.... Than actual public debate..... Even the Roses in life....got thorns lol they WANT us to think debate is THE way to go, but yo..... That's NOT what the opposition does....and they're "Winning" lol

And not by lifting up but by tearing down. I think they realized it's impossible for all to be equal so they must tear down to equalize.

Their goal is to topple the current system then eternally maintain their death grip on society. Lenin-think. Herbert Marcuse and everyone else at The Frankfurt School were Marxists.

He is definitely wrong about the reason for the zPrussian school system . I mean he was very glib, and superficial about a number of things. But since he claims professorial status, I would at least expect him to avoid blatant prejudicial statements which amount to cultural defamation.

The SJWs don’t use language to communicate; rather,they use it to manipulate.

This young generation has a super computer in the palm of their hand that can access virtually all the knowledge of humanity at the stroke of a button. What will it be in 2 more generations? How is this not wealth?

You and the interviewers themselves seem te have forgotten that they had a guest that explained very well indeed that while ofc this is true the intergenerational wealth gap is huge. They talk about home ownership, job security, the possibility of having a family &c. All in sharp decline so the boomers can wallow in luxury. Go ahead check out the trigernimetry catalogue.

Yes but it was the enlightenment and Hume that gave you postmodernism. In short, every atheist has already conceded the postmodernist correct. If they are aware of it or not.

I've not read the whole book, so this may not be representative of it, but his depiction of Thomas Kuhn as an anti-rationalist, postmodernist is very silly.

@@jetrpg22 no , the enlightenment did not give us postmodernism(at least not directly ) ,but it was the counter-enlightenment that did . Postmodernism rejects objective truth , something that the enlightenment valued.

@@JohnSmith-iu3ui en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume Now google his name and postmodernism. He is the originator of the idea or premise which postmodernism rests on. Postmodernism is the eventuality or conclusion to enlightenment thinking. I don't wanna say read a book. How about what are the central premises of enlightenment philosophy? From the very beginning Descartes wrote i think therefore i am and at the same time wrote on the brains in the vat. the latter establish the culmination of the logic that started the enlightenment itself. I had no previously mentioned why i listed Descartes. This is why not only is he often cited as the start of the enlightenment his empirical argument of how sense data is ultimately not provable itself thus all such empiricism is fruit of the poisoned tree (i think it works here). As such if empiricism or truth based on physical reality is your premise you can KNOW NOTHING AT ALL. This is the START of the enlightenment. Hume (an enlightenment philosopher) really works this out is the is-ought conundrum. And Nietzsche the fruit of the enlightenment being widely accepted by society. Sorry i know people love to cite the enlightenment like it had it figured out, but it didn't from the beginning.

It is a terrible bit of scholarship. Truly terrible. And I don't have any time at all for postmodernism. But Hicks is not a good scholar at all. Watch this critique: ukposts.info/have/v-deo/fXilqop-mIarp2g.html

I think narcissism a better explanation.

@@simonking2869 why? People can’t just be “idiots”?

Not the people who came up with this stuff, though. The tactics they've created have been effective. There's definitely a method to the madness. Destabilization, demoralization. Tear down the existing culture, so that they then can rebuild it around promoting their views and values and only theirs. The people preaching that words they don't like are actual violence, 2 + 2 does not equal four, the constant redefining of words, it's got a purpose.

@@gordons-alive4940 I don’t get how they’ve not been shut down on universities though. I mean, aren’t people challenging their belief system or do they not bother trying?

@@gordons-alive4940 I mean, these spinsters are only effective as long as society lets them be. The more people call them out and in them down on various ideas they hold, the less power they have or build .

Indeed. That was a bit painful. Not only do you have the democracy deficit in the question of "wanting to attract more people", you also have the problem of market forces not being a good solution for the misery that comes with (rapid, or rapid -ish) structural changes in the economy. I also felt his hand waveing of economic disparities rather distasteful. What does it help the millions of Nigeria, or even the low income middle aged person in Scandinavia, that the genius creator from Bangladesh has a better shot of it today than 50 years ago?

@@Asptuber "market forces not being a good solution for the misery that comes with (rapid, or rapid -ish) structural changes in the economy. "How do all these influxes of people get there and afford to live there? Market forces? That being said Hicks clearly doesn't have a clue what is going on.

When he described psychopathic Foucault, who delighted in spreading aids and was literally institutionalized for insanity, as "clever. " He lost me.

First he acknowledged he didn't know about London's specific problems and only talked about the markets he knows, Toronto and San Francisco, and second, you're proving his point, London is overcrowded because lots of people want to live there, and there are more people wanting to live there than there are space and accommodation available, that's exactly what he was saying.

I think you are spot on. London and many other historical cities in Europe can not keep expanding without destroying historical, geographical and social assets. Cities like Toronto and Houston are surrounded by empty rural areas. He also ignores the social cost of city expansion as traditional communities are moved out by more afluent incomers lese linked to the area and more likely to be economically less tied to the location. Plus the value of the newly built properties inevitably attracts investors not sustainable locally based economic growth, hence developments alongside the Thames or around Stratford Olympic Park etc are still largely empty having been bought by foreign investment capital not by people who want to live in them and develop lives lived in the local areas. To me its all about who has the wealth, influence and tools to take advantage of demand for more accomodation and what their ultimate objective is. If it is dominated by foreign (Chinese) investment, there is no need to protect communities only to make profit, which is then invested elsewhere. It is happening all over the world (New York, Paris, London even Moscow) at great expense to local culture and community and Prof. Hicks should be aware of that in detail. That is why we don't let a Philosophy Professors plan Housing Policy.

Same here, apparently I’m like bloody Ghandi and I loathe the contemporary left. They are liberal fascists

@@1mimarin Or maybe illiberal fascists!

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

Good on ya. Used to live down under as a child, grew up there. Still miss you guys lol. Cheers from Holland.

I envy you, I've always loved your country from afar (plane fare from here is ferocious!) But someday I'm going to visit.

Shirley it's already tomorrow morning??!

@@jccusell my parents are from Holland was there a few years ago ... can’t wait to come back and see my family ❤️🤍💙

Just listening now☕️☕️☕️

Agreed. The best introduction to the topic.

I disagree, if you're open minded enough then I recommend listening to 'A Critique of Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism"' by CCK Philosophy. Hicks labels a number of philosophers as 'post-modernists' even though they have critiqued post-modernism, misrepresents the history of philosophy and often lacks sources. You don't have to be a post-modernist to believe that Hicks provides a poor account of post-modernism.

​ @Theo Dixon In truth, Theo, Derrida and Foucault thought the other was a charlatan. Eminent historians have critiqued Foucault's 'archaeologies' as bad history etc. Foucault himself admitted that 1/4 of his writing is complete nonsense because he thought Fremch readers expected it.

@@seanwayman635 I believe ur referring to John Searle's anecdote about Foucault. He's reported as saying 'In France, u gotta have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep'. I think most people agree this is dumb, and u can definitely critique a lot of French continental philosophy as being pretentious and unintelligible. Searle, the one who reported the anecdote, also said that 'Foucault was often lumped with Derrida. That's very unfair to Foucault. He was a different calibre of thinker altogether'. U should be careful in lumping all these thinkers or their ideas together. I have no problem with attacking post-modernism, but the way Hicks attacks post-modernism is stupid. The original comment I was responding to claimed that Hicks' book is brilliant, if u want to have an accurate understanding on post-modernism then that's not true.

@@theodixon3298 I watched that video from CCK philosophy. It just struck me as 'true believer' defensiveness.

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

its a fairly understandable retort though...when being disabused by someone for an act that the abuser ignores in others...its unsurprising that arguments devolve into such tit for tat exchanges....unhelpful...but understandable.

I'd be careful about that . . . I get accused of 'whataboutism' frequently and frankly, its just a way of shutting me down when I am pointing to an important perspective that I feel needs to be inside the dialogue.

Sort of like this whole channel?

That's called being hostile to nuance and articulation. The Far Left does that all day long, it's authoritarianism.

It's a cheap way of dismissing anything you might say

Yes i was also disappointed. But i mean No atheist can intellectually or logically argue against postmodernism, save on a level of preference . Due to the argument of Hume and Descatres. In short the, postmodernist are consistent with the worldview required to hold the value of atheism.

@jetrpg22 Total bullshit, most atheists see this as just another religion. It has all the worst qualities with none of the positive messages. Just like other religions it's not internally consistant and doesn't accurately describe reality. They're just scooping up all the kids who otherwise would have joined your cults.

@Bob Charles As a life long human being i call bullshit on your claim. You must be so smart with heavy weight arguments such as, because i identified as a giraffe for 50 years i really know what we giraffes like. " 'value of atheism'?" Hold the concept , hold the position. Whatever you want to call it. Entirely undermine to my argument. Play word games all you want. Notice how you avoid the central reasoning of my claim. Seems like you are avoiding it. You claim to be a seasoned and expert atheist, so let me know why are you an atheist?

@@mostevil1082 "Total bullshit, most atheists see this as just another religion." Okay most Christian see just see atheism as another religion. It has all the worst qualities with none of the positive messages. Just like other religions it's not internally consistent and doesn't accurately describe reality. They're just scooping up all the kids who otherwise would have joined your cults. Now what? See how anyone can say that. I at least eluded to why the arguments of Hume and Descartes in relation to postmodernism. If you actually know this topic then you know what i am referencing or at least have an idea, or could ask. Brain in vats and is-ought. Im willing to explain what this means to atheism. There is a exception however, here ill expose my reverse scale. If you claim that you are an atheist for no reason other than, you believe god isn't real. Then that is a simple belief based on nothing but your subjective and RELATIVE belief. Making you a postmodernist (and why that is the only internally valid position for atheists). I still think its not valid for further reasons, but at least it can be claimed to be internally consistent. Feel free to justify atheism otherwise. By what standard or principle is it true?

@@jetrpg22 You're a one-note intellect, with as much concept of reality as a post modernist.

'Mask good, orangeman bad' MSM.

@@mac94312 orange man is if anything one of the pigs who has been gaslighting the other animals and at the end are eating with the humans.

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

I know what you mean but how else are they supposed to make a living? It costs time (which is money) to organise something like this and host an interview. When you live in a world that uses money, you need to get paid when you provide something of value - a service or a product.

Best comment. Thank you!!!

People are down on Foucault because he was exposed decades ago, along with Derrida, as supporting the right of adults to have sex with children. Hard to come back from that.

@@liberality 20th century fascism: burn the books. 21st century fascism: accuse the authors of pedophilia. Got it.

@@shyman3000 Have you read Foucault's accounts of the Charles Jouy case? Have you read the letters that both Foucault and Derrida signed in support of freeing men convicted of sexual abuse of children? It's not an accusation, it's documented fact.

@@shyman3000 Also, you have no clue what fascism is.

Terrifying to think the other guys feel the same way... 1619 project is just the beginning

However he emphasized only the bad in schooling, and in the worse way. We could also argue that studying the exact same things brings cohesion, so the people all share the same knowledge, have the same references, which help to unify a country and create a nation. Especially when that country is a multicultural mess like the US...

Privately educate, or homeschool, worked for Britain and the world until 1870?

What I thought was interesting in what he said was that up to a certain age play is a big part of early learning. That play is the best way to learn, that neurological research shows strong emotions encode learning. He said why do we then torture them with rote standardised nonsense.

@Mommyhustlesharder I recently read a lot about the two world wars and was shocked to discover that this tactic does not just date to the 1980s but has been going on for over a century.

Peoples mouths moving while they talk is not an actual reality, it's a social construct.

The mouths of Canadians don't normally move when they speak. I've heard they only do it to make everyone else comfortable.

It's deffo you because I've just had to replay with 4k Sirius XM zoom lens and those lips are moving even when change from Canadian to English translation on mute they be moving ..but it might just be your floppy disk reconnection out of sync.🤷🏻‍♀️

@@releesadopamine9810 This is legit. I hadn't considered this. Thanks!

@@Ahabite 😜

During peak covid BS hubby and I moved across a continent by car, if we were going to all die, why not with loved ones? Now we live in the most rural town. Hubby got work straight away. The other day I realized we were the Roman's who left a dying Rome to move to a village in Gaul.

Postmodernism is the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html

Postmodernism is like the Emperor's New Clothes of our era ukposts.info/have/v-deo/oqaKhKaDf398mJs.html