Posted on 09/23/2018 5:36:33 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Below are links to youtube wherein Prof Hicks reads his entire book on post-modernism. You can find the same links, pdf, or mp3 format at Prof Hicks website (HERE)
Or you can buy the book from Amazon in the following link:
Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Dr. Stephen Hicks
Chapter One: What Postmodernism Is (youtube audio - read by Professor Hicks)
Chapter Two: The Counter-Enlightenment Attack on Reason (youtube)
Chapter Three: The Twentieth-Century Collapse of Reason (youtube)
Chapter Four: The Climate of Collectivism (youtube)
Chapter Five: The Crisis of Socialism (youtube)
Chapter Six: Postmodern Strategy (youtube)
Here are the description and editorial reviews of the book at Amazon:
Tracing postmodernism from its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant to their development in thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty, philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century. Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world? Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences? Why has a significant portion of the political Left - the same Left that traditionally promoted reason, science, equality for all, and optimism - now switched to themes of anti-reason, anti-science, double standards, and cynicism? Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist, providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness, multiculturalism, and the future of liberal democracy.This Expanded Edition includes two additional essays by Stephen Hicks: *Free Speech and Postmodernism* and *From Modern to Postmodern Art: Why Art Became Ugly*.
Editorial Reviews:
"By the end of the book, the reader may remain ill at ease with the postmodernist malaise, but Hicks's lucid account will demystify the subject. Hicks's impressive grasp of the history of philosophy over the past few centuries enables to explain postmodernism by identifying its signposts. He lets sensitive analysis of the memorable episodes of postmodernism speak to the essential issues that drive it. His treatment of the importance of Kant s skepticism in getting the postmodernist engine going down the track is especially instructive." --Professor Curtis Hancock, Review of Metaphysics (December 2005)
"Readers of Explaining Postmodernism will find much to reflect upon and engage with in the pages of this lucid study of the background, themes, and consequences of postmodernist thought and practice. With clarity, concision, and an engaging style, Hicks exposes the historical roots and philosophical assumptions of the postmodernist phenomenon. More than that, he raises key questions about the legacy of postmodernism and its implications for our intellectual attitudes and cultural life." --Professor Steven Sanders, Reason Papers (Spring 2006)
"Stephen Hicks has written a trenchant and provocative book on a vital topic. ... Though I have at times disagreed with Hicks, he has an excellent eye for essential issues and his views always repay careful consideration." --Dr. David Gordon, The Mises Review (Fall 2005)
About the Author
Stephen Hicks is a Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College, Illinois. A native of Toronto, Canada, he received his Ph.D. from Indiana University, Bloomington. He has been a visiting professor at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., a visiting scholar at the social Philosophy and Policy Center in Bowling Green, Ohio, and a senior fellow at the Objectivist Center in New York. He is co-editor of Readings for Logical Analysis (W.W. Norton & Co.) and has published widely in academic journals and other publications such as The Wall Street Journal and The Baltimore Sun.
Bump
bmp
Bump
It's really a simplistic libertarian screed with the word "Post-Modernism" used as click-bait.
I'm a big fan of Jordan Peterson, but Peterson needs to distance himself from this libertard.
Can you be a little more specific in what you think Hicks gets wrong about postmodernism?
Discovered him a couple of years ago. He does an excellent job exposing the literal insanity that is postmodernism and how it has taken over the Universities and now seeping into main stream society.
A must read for anyone wanting to understand this pernicious threat to our rationality and how to fight it.
Jordan Peterson read Stephen Hicks book (and carefully so, as is Peterson's habit) and thought Hicks believable.
Yet you insult Hicks (and Peterson by association).
I am inclined to believe Peterson over you, particularly because you present no evidence for your conclusion.
BTW, many on the Radical Left insult Hicks and Peterson and for good reason (as far as they are concerned)...they (Peterson and Hicks) tell the truth about the Radical Left and their movement to post-modernism.
That said, what is your reason for criticizing Hicks work?
Hicks is in the minority of working philosophers as he is a 'foundationalist'. He disses all philosophies that aren't foundationalist which is basically everything but what a few cranks like him believe.
He places way too much weight on individualism, and seems to believe that individualism was invented during the Enlightenment. Wasn't Socrates behaving as an individual when he defied the status quo in Greece? Was Alexander the Great or the various Caesars or the various Hun and Mongol leaders not behaving as individuals?
He seems to have this simplistic libertarian view of the world. Libertarianism, like Communism, is an idealistic utopian philosophy. These are things to be discussed, but not to be believed.
Jordan Peterson is a liberal pragmatist. His belief system is something I don't fully agree with, but is a reasonable position to hold. I'm hoping that Peterson is only supporting Hicks in the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way.
I was walking across a bridge recently. I spied this fellow who looked like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I’d try to stall him until the authorities showed up. “Don’t jump!” I said. “Why not?” he said.“Nobody loves me.”
“God loves you,” I said. “You believe in God, don’t you?”
“Yes, I believe in God,” he said.
“Good,” I said. “Are you Christian or Jewish?”
“Christian,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Protestant or Catholic?”
“Neither,” he said.
“What then?” I said.
“Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
“Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Lose-Your-Salvation Arminian Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Historical Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or For Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Strict Separation of Church and State Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Anti-Disney Boycott Pro-Choice Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
“Me, too!” I said. “KJV Only Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Modern Versions Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
“MODERN VERSIONS Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist” he said.
“Auugghh!!! You heretic!” I said. And I pushed him over.
If he were to admit in his writings that his position is controversial, and he would back up his position with more solid argumentation, then I wouldn't have any problem with his work.
However, he puts forth his ideas as if they are obviously true with not a lot of depth or support. I watched one of his two hour long talks and within the first five minutes I was noticing major mistakes he was making. Even philosophers such as Locke, whom he supports as great Enlightenment figures, he wasn't getting right. He was basically trying to frame every philosopher as either a complete friend or complete enemy of his philosophy.
Hicks appears to be an Objectivist. Objectivism is such a controversial position that most philosophers don't even think it is worthy of the name 'philosophy'. If Stephen Hicks is one of its major proponents, then I think they have a point.
I'm afraid mine is merely practical (I am a retired businessman and private investor).
I look at Hicks and Peterson the same way. I listen to them (and read them) to see if what they say can be corroborated by my real life experience, observations of human behavior, and/or things I have read or heard from others whom I have come to respect.
Much (but not all) of what they say is corroborative, corroborated, and enlightening re: the major shifts I see in the national and international political landscape.
Hicks makes a point which I find quite interesting but not fully understood as yet. He has tried to define the relationship between Marxism, the Radical Left, and postmodernism. The relationship is visible to me but I am not yet fully satisfied as to how it came about or why it exists.
Hicks point is that when faced with the failure of communism and collectivism in the last century (and now in Venezuela), the Radical Left came to a fork in the road. They could reject their long held beliefs in Marxism/communism (which in many cases were so deeply held as to be the bigger part of who they are) OR they could reject the facts and evidence which were the proof of the failure of Marxism/communism.
Hicks (and Peterson's) point is they merged their Marxist/communist beliefs with postmodernism because postmodernism rejected rational thought, objective reality, facts, and truth. (I am sure this description of postmodernism is perhaps way too simplistic for a philosopher to accept, so please forgive me.)
After that merger, the Left is, collectively, happy as clams again because they can ignore the facts and evidence about Marxism/communism...and they now have a genuine, well-though-out philosophy which gives them permission to do so.
There is much more to say on this but that is enough for now.
As an aside, thank you for your previous comments on this thread. I think I am coming to a better understanding of your position.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.