Reddit reviews Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition)
We found 19 Reddit comments about Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
Tämä on mielestäni ihan jees analyysi Petersonista. Käsittääkseni Petersonin ymmärrys postmodernismista ei ole edes hänen omansa, vaan se perustuu tähän kirjaan, joka ei myöskään ole mitenkään uskottava tulkinta. Tälläisen kuvan olen saanut, kun olen selaillut filosofisia keskusteluita aiheesta.
Better men than me have already done that, but certainly no sickle-wielding communists are going to read them, much less assent to their conclusions.
Dr. Stephen Hicks wrote a very good book on the subject of how the failures of Marxism in the 20th Century gave rise to the postmodern philosophical tradition wherein its adherents eschew rationality and logic, aphoristically embodied by quotes such as:
>Postmodernism “seeks not to find the foundation and the conditions of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” —Frank Lentricchia
>“the normal fuck by a normal man is taken to be an act of invasion and ownership undertaken in a mode of predation” —Andrea Dworkin
>“everything is ‘in the last analysis’ political.” —Fredric Jameson
Dr. Hicks posits that only through the postmodernists’ assertion that reason and logic have failed and by appealing to people’s visceral emotions can they hope to usher in a politcoeconomic system that has been thoroughly disproven.
Postmodernity has gradually engendered the subversive notions of identity politics, political correctness, hate speech, radical feminism, transnormativity, and useless pseudoacademic institutions such as “gender studies,” all of which pervade academia.
Here’s an Amazon link to his book, Explaining Postmodernism
And here’s a fun web application called the Postmodernism Generator that uses abstruse terminology to randomly generate papers reflective of the garbage pumped out by postmodernists. The generator creates papers bearing titles such as The Defining characteristic of Sexual identity: Constructivist
libertarianism in the works of Burroughs that are utter hogwash, but humorous nonetheless and ironically calls to mind a Nietzschean quote:
>Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity.
If you're curious about a "survey overview" of postmodernism from conception to today, check out Explaining Post-Modernism. It's only $4 + change on kindle.
"Explaining postmodernism: read it, and feel all logic and sense drain away."
~ Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, U of Toronto.
That's not true. He was referring to people like Heidegger and Paul de Man, left wing European intellectuals who were nazis and then became heroes to the new left and post modernists. Insinuating that anybody you disagree with is an anti semite or racist is a stalinist tactic of ziofascist neocons and establishment liberals. Richard Wolin has written about the phenonomena of nihilist, anti enlightenment, anti capitalist, and anti science romanticist European intellectuals who were first nazis and then whose ideas were supported in America by post modernists.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Seduction-Unreason-Intellectual-Postmodernism/dp/0691125996
http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668152&sr=1-1&keywords=stephen+hicks
http://www.amazon.com/Deconstruction-Literature-Criticism-after-Auschwitz/dp/0874515661/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668256&sr=1-6&keywords=david+hirsch
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Enlightenment-Tradition-Zeev-Sternhell/dp/0300135548/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375668499&sr=1-3&keywords=zeev+sternhell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment
The two intellectual movements Molyneux was referring to. Supported by European intellectuals like Herder, Heidegger, and Fichte.
I think the best readable overview is Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks (also there's an audio version free on his website here). Critical Theory is an outgrowth of Postmodernism (and Marxism more broadly), and Hicks's book is a great and accessible overview of what it means today.
I'd have to say a great place to start is with Dr. Stephen Hicks' Explaining Post-Modernism (2006). If you search the title on YouTube, you can find the full audio book available for streaming.
Postmodern thought, which is infecting public discourse and is perhaps most prevalent within educational institutions, dictates that there are no individuals, only collective groups which we all belong to. Postmodern thinkers are obsessed with power, and with separating humans even from these groups into further sub-groups, and pitting those sub groups against each other – as the dominant and the submissive, the oppressor and the oppressed.
It’s this rejection of individual responsibility, and obsession with sub-group dominance hierarchies, which leads to the defence of Shamima Begum. There are those who say she cannot be held fully accountable because of the young age at which she joined ISIS, or plead mercy because she is pregnant. If she repented her actions, or displayed even the slightest hint of regret for her treachery, then perhaps I would have more sympathy for these arguments.
But what is really at the heart of her defence is a willingness to infer victimhood on any enemy of the West. If you listen closely to those on the far left, especially in academia, you will find a deep resentment of western societies, and a perverse forgiveness and understanding of her enemies.
The postmodern worldview holds that individuals are not responsible for their actions, but are either victims or villains based on their sub-group category. This world view positions Begum as a victim of evil western imperialism, since she was born into a particular group which has been oppressed, and cannot be held accountable for the decisions she has made. This line of thinking led Jean-François Lyotard, a postmodernist philosopher, to conclude that “Saddam Hussein (was) a product of Western departments of state and big companies”.
In order to understand how someone could draw such a ridiculous conclusion, we need to understand exactly how and why postmodern philosophy came about. During the latter half of the 20th century, it became strikingly obvious to the intellectual community that by any rational measure, communism had failed. Stephen Hicks hypothesises that left-wing academics had two choices: either to accept that communism had failed, or to construct a new way of measuring reality which would allow for communism to work. They chose the latter.
Communist apologists were presented with an overwhelming amount of evidence which rendered their political philosophy a crime against humanity. The collapse of the Soviet Union and revelations of the horrors of its death camps were enough to persuade many that communism had failed.
Left-wing academics had to give Marxism a makeover. Evidence and logic proved that socialist and communist societies have failed – but what if we simply reject logic and reason? Postmodern thinkers started to claim that everyone’s experience of the world is subjective, and that our knowledge is based on a group identity, which we cannot escape from. By rejecting reason, rejecting evidence, and dismissing the truth as subjective, postmodernist thinkers could dismiss the evidence against socialism and communism.
Furthermore, this commitment to collective group identities allowed for a new Marxist power struggle. They argue that some group identities are oppressed, and should rise up against their oppressors. Instead of the working class vs the bourgeois, postmodern thought pitches race against race, gender against gender, and so on.
Thousands of words could be written about how postmodernists have given communist ideas a makeover, and I’ll be discussing this in more detail at an event in London this evening. For the purpose of this article, it is enough to say that their worldview which is based on group identity allows them to blame everything – even joining a terrorist group like ISIS – on the West.
Postmodernists and the far left are united in their hatred of Western civilisation. During the 2017 election, Jeremy Corbyn blamed the terrorist attacks such as the Manchester bombing on British foreign policy. Andrew Murray, a friend of Len McCluskey’s and advisor to the Labour Party, blamed the formation of ISIS on Western imperialism. The far left side with Britain’s enemies because they view them as victims, not as individuals responsible for their own actions.
Last week’s reaction to the story about Begum was a perfect example of this philosophy in action. Begum, a young girl who joins a terrorist group which has burnt alive pilots, beheaded journalists and thrown gay people off buildings, is apparently a victim. However, if you’re a straight white male who has sent some questionable tweets a few years ago, you are the villain, and there can be no understanding or forgiveness.
I’m sickened by this postmodern morality, and so every person reading this article should be. This worldview doesn’t allow for the fair judgement of human beings, based on the content of their character. Rather, it forgives the wrongs of individuals belonging to ‘oppressed’ groups, and blames all the world problems on the ‘oppressors’, i.e. the West. There are those who criticise British and American foreign policy, and in many cases rightly so, but it is only the extreme left which go so far as to infer victimhood on our enemies.
Our modern society has been founded on enlightenment ideals: a respect for knowledge and science, and a respect for the individual. Societies that respect these rights of the individual to produce, and buy and sell what they choose, far outperform societies which do don’t. That is why so many who take up arms against the West are quite keen to return to Britain to enjoy far superior living standards.
So the next time you hear someone attack western societies as oppressive or responsible for all the evils in the world, understand that, for many, this is based on an intense resentment that the capitalist west disproved socialist and communist theory. Postmodern philosophy is an intellectually bankrupt attempt to re-write history and position the societies which promote individual freedom and democracy as the ‘bad guys’.
Which is self is part of the larger, post-modern war on truth, facts and reason.
When reality is not on your side, deny reality.
This has been the nature of the left for a long, long time.
Philosophy has been corrupted since Plato, with a major wrong turn by the granddaddy of postmodernism, Immanuel Kant.
The Frankfurt School simply applied this nonsense to various disciplines.
For an overview of the wrong turns of philosophy, and how that has played out in various disciplines (economics, politics, art, etc.) I would recommend Piekoff's The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights Are Going Out in the West
Just started Explaining Postmodernism; looks as though it will be interesting!
Steve Hick's "Explaining Postmodernism" was reccomended to me the last time this came up on this sub (and is layman friendly for the most part) The publisher has released the audio version for free on youtube. (around 6 hrs total)
Goes through the historical roots of the movement (revival of early theological anti-enlightenment philosophy) and how the post modernist lens shapes ones worldview.
He's critical of post modernism (for the same reasons sam is) but focuses on explaining the base assumptions and precepts of the movement
The recommended book:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/0983258406
Det finns olika grupperingar inom feminismen, men den som har varit på uppsving de senaste åren har ett otäckt förhållningssätt till objektivitet, logik ("uppfunnet av vita män för att förtrycka") etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPnUOcsjqgA för en kort redogörelse
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406 för en längre, aktuell dissektion.
Troligen är det det nuvarande största hotet mot det moderna samhället.
If you think it's still possible to expand upon what you already know, you could start here. You can even pick your favorite discipline:
* Philosophy: Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault.
* Literature: John Ellis, Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities.
* History: Keith Windschuttle, The Killing of History.
* Science: Noretta Koertge, editor, A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science.
* Law: Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry, Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law.
​
Or you could just accept that one does not need advanced degrees in philosophy to study, understand, analyze and interpret it - not to mention TO philosophize - and read this: https://jordanbpeterson.com/philosophy/postmodernism-definition-and-critique-with-a-few-comments-on-its-relationship-with-marxism/
Watch the lecture I attached, where a top philosophy professor is interviewed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwW9QV5Ulmw&t=1652s
Dr. Stephen R. C. Hicks (www.stephenhicks.org), Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, Illinois, USA, Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship, and Senior Scholar at The Atlas Society in August of 2017 (http://bit.ly/306ggDQ), and decided that it was time for an update. Dr. Hicks received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University of Guelph, Canada, and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. He has published four books, translated into sixteen different languages: • In 1994; 2nd ed 1998 The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis (co-edited with David Kelley, W. W. Norton & Co., 1994, second edition 1998). • In 2010, Nietzsche and the Nazis • In 2016, Entrepreneurial Living (co-edited with Jennifer Harrolle) The remaining book, published in 2004 and expanded in 2011, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, has been particularly relevant to our discussions. It’s available at Amazon.com (https://amzn.to/2Jh4Uro) but also in pdf form on Dr. Hick’s website (http://bit.ly/2MaI9rH). I found it very helpful when trying to understand the intellectual roots of the ideas that appear so dominant in today’s universities.
For a really good introduction (from a critical perspective), I recommend Stephen Hicks's book Explaining Postmodernism.
Reading this book would be a good intro to the problem:
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1518811680&sr=8-1&keywords=stephen+hicks&linkCode=ll1&tag=epact&linkId=3b483174b8852dfc6e2d3c8f6139fd9e
What happened to being done with this convo? Also, you still have failed to come up with an even slightly acceptable retort to anything I have said.
>https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406
And the moron has reached peak idiocy by recommending Stephen Hicks' horrible fucking book lmao
Thank you for cementing my point that you're a complete brain dead moron who is incapable of providing a solitary original thought on the subject. You parrot what you're too stupid to explain/understand yourself. Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if you linked a JBP or Sargon vid next lmao
https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406
Also, none of this is my fabrication. There's a whole realm of analysis about it. Here's a great starting point for you: https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/0983258406
Prob either Gulag Archipelago or Explaining Post-Modernism.
Both of which are often recommended by Peterson. The former for its devastating explication of the dark inevitabilities of marxism, and the latter for its clear overview of post-modernism and how it has emerged and gained power through the decades.