This week we’re interviewing Professor Stephen Hicks. Stephen is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He is the author of two books: Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault argues that postmodernism is best understood as a rhetorical strategy of intellectuals and academics on the far left of the political spectrum developed in reaction to the failure of socialism and communism and Nietzsche and the Nazis, an examination of the ideological and philosophical roots of National Socialism, particularly how Nietzsche’s ideas were used, and in some cases misused, by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to justify their beliefs and practices.
Stephen maintains a personal website at stephenhicks.org
Sott Media
Source
Hello guys, greetings from England.
That was an awesome conversation, so good, that I listened to it twice. I read Stephen Hicks' book Explaining Post-Modernism a few years ago but read it again a couple of weeks ago, in my latest round of trying to fully understand the Po-Mo cult of nebulous nonsense and its historical foundations.
So, Stephen brought me to this conversation. I thought you all did a great job of discussing it with him. Your chat at the end was as interesting as the interview with Stephen. The venom that you [we] all share for Po-Mo ridiculosity was funny; book burnings and using them for target practice, which would demonstrate the holes in their arguments. Haha, brilliant.
In Explaining Post-Modernism, Stephen mentions how they built on the German Irrationalist philosophers that were denouncing Rationalism, in order to leave room for their God. Thus, the Po-Mo's don't see rational thoughts as being totally valid, hence we see them using straw-man, ad hominems, false equivalence and even outright lies as part of their arguments. No wonder we face-palm at their assertions. They are lost. In many ways, this was one of the take away thoughts, now I don't get quite as frustrated at their stupidity; at least now I can rationalise their irrationality.
Also in the book, he draws attention to the psychology of the loser, where having lost the argument for "Scientific Socialism" (Marxism) then their rationale is "well, if I can't have this, then no one can have anything." The epistemology of the (very) bad loser.
Thanks again for posting this great chat. It helped me add another layer of understanding the philosophy of verbose and cynical obscurantism, which only the downfall of the West.
Have a great day, chaps .. 🙂
I need help understanding postmodernist epistemology. How can they make any assertions, or rank order any concepts or behavior when they reject the laws of identity and the excluded middle as well as the principle of explosion?
I understand that there are forms of logic that do away with one or more of these principles of bivalence for the sake of models that are more or less fine grained than standard form. However, that is not what post modernists are doing. They are rejecting all of these things and yet still trying to make normative, prescriptive arguments. How can this be?
Someone has to come up with a counter philosophy to postmodernism that is more energizing than objectivism or the slightly geriatric though brilliant philosophy of Scruton.
The updated revitalizing, synergistic expression of (Enlightened) Modernism has all there is that is needed to super-impose, clobber, and counter Post-Modernism if it encompasses the concrete, street valued, and common sense applicability, and base common sense (as inferred by thought out of comprehension with correct or tempting argument) of what that is so that the ignorant masses can comprehend, incorporate it in their psyche (consciously or unconsciously) over time to stick to what would be , at least, what would hopefully be palatable. It has to be accepted via intellectual marketing by virtue of logic, reason, and pragmatism. I cannot be sold by way of the Post-Modernists…lest we stoop to that criminal ideology.
See Jordan Peterson Ph.D and his new and novel social campaign which I consider to be and integral and critical message for the blind masses and the world who do not understand the philosophical history of where we are now which is hyper-critical. I wish Dr. Stephen Hicks and Dr. Jordan Peterson would realize that the work they are doing with this research and work is exponentially more important than they understand. This, yes, is assumptive, but I think they don't get the critical nature of their research and I wish they would step aside from their talks and research and see exactly what they purport and how it is playing out in the world's streets. I love what they promote in terms of ideology, but they are academics and not activists. They hold volcanic theories, logic, history, and a loose line to the minds of the world that considers all of this. How can we get these guys (and other) to break out of their academic and restraining academia to become activists to counter the Post-modernists beyond the safe things they are currently doing. What they are saying is the critical, larger picture of what needs to be spread like a treatment to counter the passionate cancerous spread going back decades. Why are we afraid of them. We need men with balls to promote this ideology promoted by Hicks and Peterson to counter the aggressive and incremental and successful movement of the Post-modernists. It is one thing to make a point, but it is another to fight when the entire Western culture is in the balance. I challenge these men and their like-minded cohorts to be come activists and fight for some of us. Perhaps this is the united cause behind your intelligence and academia. Maybe your truth is ammunition to combat the balance of the world vs. making a name for yourself, make money. Please, please…help us low level fighter make a difference. We need the likes of among the span of our soldier want to preserve reason, rationality, concrete science, and fight the bastardization of reality. If you don't, good luck living with yourself. This is a global fight…and not crazed conspiracy theories.