Art Theory

Explaining Postmodernism: Chapter 3: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason



CEE Video Channel

This audiobook edition of Explaining Postmodernism is read by the author.

To listen to more of the audiobook on YouTube, visit: http://www.youtube.com/user/EPAudiobook

To download MP3s of the audiobook or for more information, visit Dr. Stephen Hicks’s Explaining Postmodernism page:
http://www.stephenhicks.org/publications/explaining-postmodernism/

Source

Similar Posts

10 thoughts on “Explaining Postmodernism: Chapter 3: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason
  1. I don't see the dilemma that postmodernism sees with reason failing to explain being. The reason something exists rather than nothing is that nothing has never been and will never be a true state of reality. What reason do we have to propose "nothing" as a state that being had to arise from? I feel like they boxed themselves into a unnecessary corner, proposing that the most fundamental being has to emerge from nothingness. Its either eternally something or it's nothingness. Neither can produce or be derived from the other, so only one is true. So reason would dictate that we reject nothingness, because it has no reason to be a state of reality.

    Time is an emergent property of our universe due to the closed system's change in entropy from low to high. If these phenomena are nonexistent outside of our universe, and what exists is an eternal fabric of reality outside of time why would that be bound to being and nothingness as we construct it in our minds? Is it not reasonable for that fabric to have always existed and to always exist? This idea is more fully explained by physicist Lawrence Krauss in "A Universe From Nothing".

  2. So it seems they take all the cynical parts of Nietzsche and Heidegger out of their holistic context, leaving the transcendent parts behind

  3. I almost can't listen to these chapters out of disgust of these philosophers. Their philosophies seem so much like bullshit it is unbelievable that they got away with writing it and people actually taking it seriously.

  4. At least you seem to understand what is being said in this video. I simply cannot grasp how they expect us to think that reason and logic are somehow unable to deal with some of these thoughts. I think the example of how both sides of the question leads to absurdities and so therefore reason/logic needs to be discarded is so outrageous, if both sides lead to absurdities, it seems far more reasonable to assume you have not thought of another possibility rather then to discard reason and logic.

  5. I'm finally beginning to understand where one of my best friends from highschool and my own path diverged to the point where there seems to be almost no common ground between us on any issue, no matter how trivial, he having taken the philosophy road to enlightenment and me taking the economics route. By taking reality as a first premise one is lead to certain materialist conclusions which are congenial to economics, while philosophy has gotten so abstract only group identification can save you

Comments are closed.

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com