Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks
Uploaded by
Ptyx
Follow the Author
Stephen R. C. Hicks
Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) Hardcover – 19 August 2011
by Stephen R. C. Hicks (Author)
4.7 out of 5 stars 572 ratings
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*.
Read less
Read less
====
Contents
Thesis: The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible,
and the failureof socialism made postmodernism necessary
.
List of Tables and Charts
Chapter One: What Postmodernism Is
The postmodern vanguardFoucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Rorty1Modern and postmodern5Modernism and the Enlightenment7Postmodernism versus the Enlightenment14Postmodern academic themes15Postmodern cultural themes18Why postmodernism? 20
Chapter Two: The Counter-Enlightenment Aack on
Reason
Enlightenment reason, liberalism, and science 23
The beginnings of the Counter-Enlightenment 24
Kant’s skeptical conclusion 27
Kant’s problematic from empiricism and rationalism 29
Kant’s essential argument 32
Identifying Kant’s key assumptions 36
Why Kant is the turning point 39
Aer Kant: reality or reason but not both
42
Metaphysical solutions to Kant: from Hegel to Nietzsche 44
Dialectic and saving religion 46
Hegel’s contribution to postmodernism 50
Epistemological solutions to Kant: irrationalism from Kierkegaardto Nietzsche51
Summary of irrationalist themes 56
Chapter Three: The Twentieth-Century Collapse ofReason
Heidegger’s synthesis of the Continental tradition58
Seing aside reason and logic
61Emotions as revelatory 62
Heidegger and postmodernism65
Positivism and Analytic philosophy: from Europe to America67
From Positivism to Analysis70Recasting philosophy’s function72
Perception, concepts, and logic74From the collapse of Logical Positivism to Kuhn and Rorty78
Summary: A vacuum for postmodernism to ll
79
First thesis: Postmodernism as the end result of Kantianepistemology80
Chapter Four: The Climate of Collectivism
From postmodern epistemology to postmodern politics84The argument of the next three chapters86Responding to socialism’s crisis of theory and evidence89Back to Rousseau91Rousseau’s Counter-Enlightenment92Rousseau’s collectivism and statism96Rousseau and the French Revolution100
Counter-Enlightenment Politics: Right and Le collectivism
104Kant on collectivism and war106Herder on multicultural relativism109Fichte on education as socialization112Hegel on worshipping the state120From Hegel to the twentieth century124
Right versus Le collectivism in the twentieth century
125The Rise of National Socialism: Who are the
real
socialists?130
Chapter Five: The Crisis of Socialism
Marxism and waiting for Godot135
Three failed predictions136
Socialism needs an aristocracy: Lenin, Mao, and the lesson of theGerman Social Democrats138
Good news for socialism: depression and war141
Bad news: liberal capitalism rebounds143
Worse news: Khrushchev’s revelations and Hungary145
====
Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s ethical
standard150
From need to equality151
From wealth is good to wealth is bad 153
Responding to the crisis: change socialism’s epistemology
156
Marcuse and the Frankfurt School: Marx plus Freud, oroppression plus repression159
The rise and fall of Le terrorism 166
From the collapse of the New Le to postmodernism
170
Chapter Six: Postmodern Strategy
Connecting epistemology to politics174
Masks and rhetoric in language175
When theory clashes with fact178
Kierkegaardian postmodernism179
Reversing Thrasymachus182
Using contradictory discourses as a political strategy184
Machiavellian postmodernism186
Machiavellian rhetorical discourses187
Deconstruction as an educational strategy188
Ressentiment postmodernism191
Nietzschean ressentiment 192
Foucault and Derrida on the end of man195
Ressentiment strategy198
Post-postmodernism 201
Bibliography
202
Index
212
Acknowledgements
223
Two Additional Essays
Free Speech and Postmodernism
Sample speech codes225Why not rely on the First Amendment?226
Context: why the Le?
227
Armative action as a working example
228Egalitarianism231Inequalities along racial and sexual lines233The social construction of minds234Speakers and censors23
====
The heart of the debate238
The justication of freedom of speech
239Three special cases241Racial and sexual hate speech242The university as a special case243
From Modern to Postmodern Art: Why ArtBecame Ugly
Introduction: the death of modernism247Modernism’s themes248Postmodernism’s four themes257The future of art26
===
Product description
Review
By the end of Explaining Postmodernism, the reader may remain ill at ease with postmodernist malaise, but Hicks s lucid account will demystify the subject. * Curtis Hancock, Ph.D., Review of Metaphysics --Review of Metaphysics
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. * Steven M. Sanders, Ph.D., Reason Papers --Reason Papers
Refreshingly, Hicks does not take it as given that the poststructuralist viewpoints have been demonstrated to be in error. Rather, he seeks to trace them to a powerful ressentiment directed against the partisan of the Enlightenment and of capitalist achievement, and to provide the Enlightenment thinker with openings for serious intellectual engagement. * Marcus Verhaegh, Ph.D., The Independent Review --The Independent Review
About the Author
Stephen Ronald Craig Hicks (born 1960) is professor of philosophy at Rockford University, where he is also Executive Director of the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He is the author of *Nietzsche and the Nazis* (Ockham's Razor, 2006, 2010), *Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault* (Scholargy Publishing, 2004; expanded edition, 2011), and co-editor of *The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis* (W. W. Norton & Co., 1998). Hicks earned a Ph.D. from Indiana University in 1991 and his B.A. (Honours) from the University of Guelph, Canada in 1981.
Tell the Publisher!
I’d like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Complete your collection of children's books and save!
New children's book bundles Shop now
===
Top reviews from Australia
Reviewed in Australia on 18 February 2019
Verified Purchase
The language of this book is so declarative from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph without developed discussion of any of the declarations made, that I am l completely aghast that the author is a philosopher. There is a 'black and whiteness' between postmodernism and enlightenment to the exclusion of any discussion of the large non-enlightened realms of political, colonial and military movements of the last few centuries, that I am left wondering whether the author has any sense of world or philosophical history, at all. Otherwise, Hicks seems either not to understand post-modernism, nor even the value of relativism, and provides the most prejudiced 'cherry-picked' and manipulated view of a subject I have been dishonored to have had to read of a touted 'learned' man.
Reviewed in Australia on 10 March 2021
Verified Purchase
Great book explaining the history and current ideology of postmodernism in real life. It's not very technical and complicated, but made easy to understand. I really enjoy diving deep in this book as part of better understanding the problems with postmodernism thought and how it throws out the window basic biology. In speech they do that but they act as if biology exists because they all die. Wow that got dark. 5/5 Highly recommend this book.
Reviewed in Australia on 25 December 2018
Verified Purchase
Explains in detail the history leading up to post-modernist thought and arguments. The last two essays are fantastic and informative. A must read for people who have encountered these ideas
Reviewed in Australia on 6 December 2021
While the author makes pretty clear what side of the debate he stands on, he also (IMHO) does a truly excellent job of connecting lines of philosophical thought together without apparent partiality or bias. Moreover, since he does not himself attempt any defence of Enlightenment thinking, all in all I think that those readers who have 'drunk the postmodernist cool-aid' (and this group includes me, to some extent) will be able to find a great deal of useful thinking and research in this book.
Reviewed in Australia on 19 April 2019
Stephen Hicks explains 300 years of political philosophy extremely well.
His knowledge is profound, fully referenced, well written and easy to read.
This book explained many philosophical trends for me.
Rarely do you find a person who understands Nietszche.
Stephen....you are up there with the best.
If you study philosophy or just want to understand why our civilization is crazy then buy this book.
A must for all intellectuals, higher man and masters (of morality).
His knowledge is profound, fully referenced, well written and easy to read.
This book explained many philosophical trends for me.
Rarely do you find a person who understands Nietszche.
Stephen....you are up there with the best.
If you study philosophy or just want to understand why our civilization is crazy then buy this book.
A must for all intellectuals, higher man and masters (of morality).
Reviewed in Australia on 16 August 2019
This book typifies American reception of postmodernism as a cultural and social threat. It's attempt at an intellectual genealogy of postmodernism is superficial and unreliable, and there is no serious attempt to engage with the thinkers Hick identifies as "postmodernist" - some of whom would deny the label. It reads more as a politically motivated intervention in the "cultural wars" than the careful and informed philosophical treatise it ought to have been.
Reviewed in Australia on 24 July 2020
This is an important book, and despite what the negative reviews say here, it captures the amorphous thing that is postmodernism and its development very well.
Top reviews from other countries
Mr. G. Lawrence
We Are in the Grip of a Creeping Totalitarianism...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 18 April 2021Verified Purchase
Jacob Naur
Perhaps it is down to something like this: After the Entlightenment no real progress was ...
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 21 May 2018Verified Purchase
Oberon
Explains Postmodernism Very Well
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 13 August 2018Verified Purchase
Dr. P. Cramer
Truly excellent book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 7 November 2018Verified Purchase
Patrick Moore
Devastating treatise
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 15 June 2019Verified Purchase
===
Good book. Some flaws but, in the end, an interesting read.
I didn't care for his encapsulation of Kant and the transcendentalist endeavor. He didn't seem to grasp the power of Hume's criticism/empiricism. Hicks would rather put the blame on Kant's shoulders (in part, it seems, simply because Kant is German and it fits better into his Anglo vs Continental dichotomy) than dignify that Hume was the real problem child of empiricism and that Locke's dogmatism was, to many, incapable of withstanding the strength of Hume's skepticism. In this way, it might be fair enough to say that Kant destroyed philosophy in order to save it, but to argue that everything was hunky-dory before Kant wrote the Critique is simply false.
Also, there is an ever-present subtext of appeal to motive throughout the whole book. Kant sacrificed objectivity to save religion from empiricism. Kierkegaard sacrificed reason to also save religion from scrutiny. Heidegger folds in being with nothingness because of self-loathing. And, finally, postmodernists destroy language and, by extension reason, to prevent substantive demonstration of the validity of capitalism as triumphant over socialism (or, in other words, to prevent the effective rejection of utopian idealism). Hicks refuses to believe than anyone involved in the transition from Kant and Rousseau to Derrida and Rorty believed that they were genuinely involved in a passionate search for truth. Each was an opportunist, a sophist, trying to wring political, theological, and economic consequences from the bowels of epistemology, ontology, and linguistics. A stretch, to say the least.
At the same time, he does a great job showing the would-be enormous coincidence that nearly all postmodernist thinkers are leftist collectivists. Instead of merely marveling at this phenomenon, Hicks delves into the thought and shows, quite powerfully, the connection between the historical development of differing strains of anti-liberal, collectivist political movements and the corresponding ideologies utilized to support them. Linking the zeitgeist between politics and philosophy isn’t the real selling point here; it’s showing how, when various anti-liberal movements fail to achieve their utopian ideal, committed utopians will construct elaborate philosophical frameworks to side-step the conclusion that collectivist utopianism is inferior to liberal capitalism. By his account, major strands of contemporary philosophy are simply no-true-Scotsman-esque reworking to preserve a conception of man’s perfectibility through the state. The most recent manifestation, deconstruction and absurdism, is just an overwrought tantrum of the utter failures of socialist implementation over the last 150 years. The author suggests that their strategy is based, in the words of Nietzsche, on the following motivation: “When some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do, they exclaim angrily, 'May the whole world perish!' This repulsive emotion is the pinnacle of envy, whose implication is, 'If I cannot have something, no one is to have anything, no one is to be anything!'”
Ultimately, the author paints with broad brushes but makes a compelling enough point throughout that he can be excused for glossing over some detail at times. He is writing a polemic about an enormous subject that is designed to be accessible most readers, so I, at least, am willing to tolerate his seeming glibness. The purpose of the book is to make a compelling case that philosophy has been defined by political ideology, itself rooted in the dreams of willful men more interested in high-minded visions of human perfectibility than the murky lessons of actual history, and it achieves this purpose.
(less)
I didn't care for his encapsulation of Kant and the transcendentalist endeavor. He didn't seem to grasp the power of Hume's criticism/empiricism. Hicks would rather put the blame on Kant's shoulders (in part, it seems, simply because Kant is German and it fits better into his Anglo vs Continental dichotomy) than dignify that Hume was the real problem child of empiricism and that Locke's dogmatism was, to many, incapable of withstanding the strength of Hume's skepticism. In this way, it might be fair enough to say that Kant destroyed philosophy in order to save it, but to argue that everything was hunky-dory before Kant wrote the Critique is simply false.
Also, there is an ever-present subtext of appeal to motive throughout the whole book. Kant sacrificed objectivity to save religion from empiricism. Kierkegaard sacrificed reason to also save religion from scrutiny. Heidegger folds in being with nothingness because of self-loathing. And, finally, postmodernists destroy language and, by extension reason, to prevent substantive demonstration of the validity of capitalism as triumphant over socialism (or, in other words, to prevent the effective rejection of utopian idealism). Hicks refuses to believe than anyone involved in the transition from Kant and Rousseau to Derrida and Rorty believed that they were genuinely involved in a passionate search for truth. Each was an opportunist, a sophist, trying to wring political, theological, and economic consequences from the bowels of epistemology, ontology, and linguistics. A stretch, to say the least.
At the same time, he does a great job showing the would-be enormous coincidence that nearly all postmodernist thinkers are leftist collectivists. Instead of merely marveling at this phenomenon, Hicks delves into the thought and shows, quite powerfully, the connection between the historical development of differing strains of anti-liberal, collectivist political movements and the corresponding ideologies utilized to support them. Linking the zeitgeist between politics and philosophy isn’t the real selling point here; it’s showing how, when various anti-liberal movements fail to achieve their utopian ideal, committed utopians will construct elaborate philosophical frameworks to side-step the conclusion that collectivist utopianism is inferior to liberal capitalism. By his account, major strands of contemporary philosophy are simply no-true-Scotsman-esque reworking to preserve a conception of man’s perfectibility through the state. The most recent manifestation, deconstruction and absurdism, is just an overwrought tantrum of the utter failures of socialist implementation over the last 150 years. The author suggests that their strategy is based, in the words of Nietzsche, on the following motivation: “When some men fail to accomplish what they desire to do, they exclaim angrily, 'May the whole world perish!' This repulsive emotion is the pinnacle of envy, whose implication is, 'If I cannot have something, no one is to have anything, no one is to be anything!'”
Ultimately, the author paints with broad brushes but makes a compelling enough point throughout that he can be excused for glossing over some detail at times. He is writing a polemic about an enormous subject that is designed to be accessible most readers, so I, at least, am willing to tolerate his seeming glibness. The purpose of the book is to make a compelling case that philosophy has been defined by political ideology, itself rooted in the dreams of willful men more interested in high-minded visions of human perfectibility than the murky lessons of actual history, and it achieves this purpose.
(less)
What an awful, awful book. Equating postmodernists with leftists and then claiming they 'more often than others' (who the fuck is others?), engage in authoritarian 'political correctness' and more often incorporate rage and anger in their argumentation.
Oh and for the love of christ on a crutch Dvorkin never said that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercou... (less)
Oh and for the love of christ on a crutch Dvorkin never said that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercou... (less)
Almost spectacularly moronic.
Not only an impressively wrong headed, bad faith reading of postmodern thought, but Hicks decides whip out his idiotic interpretations of pre-enlightenment, enlightenment, and modernist thought while he was at it.
The fact anyone is seriously taking this impressively bad scholarship seriously is both a testament to the influence of Lobster Lad and how ready people are to latch onto literally any source that “justifies” their worldview, no matter how poorly informed or illegitimate said source may be. (less)
Not only an impressively wrong headed, bad faith reading of postmodern thought, but Hicks decides whip out his idiotic interpretations of pre-enlightenment, enlightenment, and modernist thought while he was at it.
The fact anyone is seriously taking this impressively bad scholarship seriously is both a testament to the influence of Lobster Lad and how ready people are to latch onto literally any source that “justifies” their worldview, no matter how poorly informed or illegitimate said source may be. (less)
Dec 11, 2011Douglas Wilson rated it it was amazing · review of another edition
Shelves: philosophy, politics
Stephen Hicks is some sort of Objectivist or Randian, and so that should be said right up front. And this means I do not know how he managed to get that many rocks onto his magic epistemological carpet, and still less do I know how he got it to fly like that. But let us assume his craft was flight-worthy . . . Hicks spent the entire book beaning postmodernists with rocks. He has a good arm, and is a nice shot. I haven't enjoyed a book this much in quite some time.
Hicks provides an essential service here -- he shows the connections between postmodern theory and hard Leftist politics. Here is his thesis: "The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.." (less)
Hicks provides an essential service here -- he shows the connections between postmodern theory and hard Leftist politics. Here is his thesis: "The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.." (less)
Explained the genesis and developments of postmodernist theory to philosophy-averse me. I never stayed up till 3am for a philosophy book before.
Oct 20, 2016Mahmoud Awad rated it it was ok
Recommends it for: Austrian Economists, people who shout "ad hominem" over dinner conversation
Shelves: reference
Another comical presentation of that fundamental libertarian inability to differentiate Nazism from Bolshevism. Shape your expectations accordingly.
Carl Jung used to say, 'People don't have ideas, ideas have their people.' Postmodernism has pierced the minds of its victims, possessed them and controlled them.
Postmodernism is filled with superstition and it's explicitly anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-logic.
The people that come up with these theories are truly pathological.
Postmodernism is the Alex Jones of philosophy. (less)
Postmodernism is filled with superstition and it's explicitly anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-logic.
The people that come up with these theories are truly pathological.
Postmodernism is the Alex Jones of philosophy. (less)
A more accurate title might be "Explaining Postmodernism: Misreading Philosophers from Rousseau to Foucault." This work will fit nicely into my 'worst' shelf, never did 5 minutes go by without a comical misinterpretation, erroneous conflation, or blatant falsity surrounding any number of philosophers and their ideas, particularly Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, and 'the postmodernists' (which is really a useless and unhelpful category) in general.
To any fan of this book I could recommend two things:
1. Actually read the work of those Mr Hicks is critical of
2. Watch this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvT...), which I pretty much find correct
Mr Hicks does not really even criticize any of the aforementioned philosophers on their own terms, but instead aims his cross-hairs at the so-called 'SJWs,' or leftists who like to yell at buildings, through these figures. I can guarantee that very few of those people could make sense of even a page of Kant, Derrida, Nietzsche, or most other names Mr Hicks mentions. (less)
To any fan of this book I could recommend two things:
1. Actually read the work of those Mr Hicks is critical of
2. Watch this short video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvT...), which I pretty much find correct
Mr Hicks does not really even criticize any of the aforementioned philosophers on their own terms, but instead aims his cross-hairs at the so-called 'SJWs,' or leftists who like to yell at buildings, through these figures. I can guarantee that very few of those people could make sense of even a page of Kant, Derrida, Nietzsche, or most other names Mr Hicks mentions. (less)
By titling this book Explaining Postmodernism, Hicks is being overly gentle toward the postmodernist dogma, since his handling of the material warrants the more apt title of Vanquishing Postmodernism. Word for word, page for page, this is the most substantial and coherent philosophy-critical text I've read. Where other works will waste time and space and become bogged down in semantics and jargon and insider lingo, this book cuts straight to the point with powerfully worded and clearly written prose that doesn't waste your time or attempt to impress you with the superficial. This is the most appropriate way to write such a book, because this is the biggest contrast to postmodernism possible, in that it accomplishes clarity of purpose, clarity of point, and contradicts much of what constitutes postmodern writing. He could have afforded more time with certain ideas, and fleshed out his sources and ideas better, but in the end the use of space in this book was about as good as could be hoped for.
Hicks is perhaps not very charitable or gentle in his handling of past thinkers who have in some way impacted what we today see as postmodernism, but he presents a well researched history of the intellectual thought that brought us the Enlightenment, and provides an equally compelling and well informed history of what would become the anti-intellectual response to modernism's Age of Enlightenment: postmodernism. He fleshes it out with the thinkers responsible for such dogmatic and irrational modes of thinking, and outlines their chain of influence and the perplexing logic they espouse in the face of reality. Some of these thinkers are even associated with Enlightenment era thought, and it's interesting to see how their ideas were used by others in the development of what eventually came to be known as postmodern philosophy.
Explaining and analyzing the philosophy is not a trivial problem, and this is magnified by the turbulent discussions that are currently in fashion. Whenever one attempts to criticize postmodernism in anything other than delicate and roundabout postmodernist terms, inevitably a fellow with a non-ironic CCCP t-shirt pops up to say, "That isn't postmodernism," or, "Postmodernism is an artistic and literary movement," or, "Kant was not a postmodernist, so how could his work possibly contribute to any of the postmodern landscape?" or, "Postmodernism and Marxism are completely unrelated and have nothing in common!" This is postmodernizing the discussion.
An anti-intellectual trend that I thought had merely existed for a few decades in fact has roots reaching back over a hundred years, sometimes coming from not so wild or radical sources. One of the most surprising connections Hicks draws is between Nietzsche and postmodernism. I've seen people try to dismiss this. But having read a decent amount of Nietzsche myself, I realize that it is impossible to dismiss this connection. The relationship is blatant. Nietzsche's perspectivism is not merely a seed, but the tree trunk upon which much of postmodern philosophy is built. Perspectivism is the direct ancestor of such poorly grounded modern notions as social constructivism, relativism, and subjectivism.
And Hicks touches on other unexpected ancestors to postmodern thought, some of which were rather reasonable or thoughtful. The transformation of once thoughtful ideas into their reactionary and irrational components, particularly within different cultural contexts, designed specifically to deflect the logical criticisms of socialism's weaknesses by developing an inherently useless and contradictory process of anti-logic, can lead to some bizarre conclusions that are not only unable to explain anything within view of objective reality, but are celebrated for their inability to do so. For it is postmodernism's driving purpose to bring weight and some form of credence to ideas and values that are fundamentally flawed, and that are incapable of being defended through established modes of logic and reason. Doing so requires the abandonment of reason and the adoption of child like and amateurish thinking that I think can only be summarized as anti-thinking.
Anti-thinking is not the same as non-thinking, which is the act of doing nothing. If we look at thinking as driving, then non-thinking is simply sitting still, perhaps not even being inside the vehicle. But anti-thinking is then akin to intentionally driving through a half mile of hazard cones, side-rails, and straight off a bridge. The hazard cones, the side-rails, the bridge, the gravity that pulls one into the river, to the postmodern anti-thinker all of these are merely constructs, subjective interpretations of reality based on a struggling power hierarchy through history coloring their perceived veracity, and therefore this path through the cones and rails and off the bridge into the water is no less valid than the calm path over the bridge to the other side, because to some distant observer we could say that the other side and the river bed are indistinguishable from one another and therefore they are kind of indistinguishable in real subjective experience, right? And while one person may interpret getting to the other side as just one step closer to the end of their journey, the person drowning at the bottom of the river could perceive this slow, panicked suffocation as one step closer to the end of their own journey. See, man? It's all about experience and our inability to really know things objectively. This is postmodernism.
One will encounter very many enthusiastic defenders of postmodernism who are not lazy, but the way they formulate arguments, points or counterpoints, process information, or even approach a topic has this residue of obsessive skepticism toward objective fact, a cynicism toward knowledge, a religious-like faith in the shaky hypotheses of power structures as the explanation for all human history and interaction, and they will almost always show that this cynicism and skepticism and faith are borne not of a hyper-awareness of the subject, but of a vast ignorance and incapability of understanding the subject. As soon as one attempts to discuss the subject with this defender, the defender jumps onto a bicycle and begins anti-thinking all over the sidewalk, or rather, expressing postmodern conjecture in every direction, declaring objective knowledge of objective reality impossible, and therefore all ideas and thoughts equally valid and equally subordinate to social conditions.
This goes a long way toward explaining why the criticisms of this work are largely leveled by those steeped in the blind dogmatism being criticized, infected with many of the same shortcomings in their thought and information processing. You see this when evangelicals criticize works of atheist thinkers, and their greatest arguments are, "These men are not familiar with the Bible!" Perhaps not as familiar as you, no. But a strong familiarity with the Bible is not a prerequisite for pointing out the many weaknesses, flaws, and absurdities of religious thought.
Postmodernism, as an ideology, a philosophy, a mode of thought, is a conundrum that provides nothing of value to intellectual discourse, and prides itself in that. Nothing can be valuable in postmodernist ideation, which probably sounds profound to a high-schooler. But seriously pondering that concept for a few moments ought to shine some light on why postmodernism not only doesn't, but can't, provide a worthwhile way of thinking about things. Only through irrational pseudo-intellectual and contradictory exercises is postmodernism capable of forwarding the ideas it holds sacred. That is to say, postmodernism is only validated by postmodernism, and even then, only by playing by a different set of rules than it subjects the rest of the intellectual world to. Any idea that cannot stand up to the same criticisms that its proponents level at other ideas, and instead requires a new criteria on which to be evaluated, is a joke. Maybe not even a joke, but a punchline without a joke. Hicks factually and carefully explains the origins and causes of postmodern thought and how it has become an unfortunate cornerstone in much modern thought.
Postmodernism's irrationality and deep seated confusion about knowledge is only the beginning, as anyone who's had the misfortune of engaging with postmodern practitioners will readily confess. The plethora of counterproductive subfields developed in the realm of PM, the intellectually irresponsible academics who perpetuate faulty takes on our senses and our ability to understand our world, the near infinite pages of vapid circular reasoning and bad philosophy practiced by its adherents, the countless abuses of, and attacks on, science and scientific rationality, among so many other things, are some of the sad fashions that are championed by the distraction known as postmodernism. And it would be fine if these attacks or criticisms were informed or based on a sound understanding of the very things being criticized -- but they uniformly are not.
Postmodernists are like the child playing a board game who doesn't understand the rules, no matter how often and how slowly they're explained, and is unable to make progress through the game. He objects that these rules are completely made-up, which sounds like an astute (for a child) if pointless observation until you realize he isn't talking only about the rules of the game, but that he also thinks the numbers on the die are made up because they can't possibly represent anything, and that the tumble of the die is determined by oppressive power structures, and that the colors on the board are unfair to him, and that the images on the cards are only representations of reality and therefore they don't represent anything meaningful, so he can interpret a card of Suffering Poison Damage and Enfeeblement as a card of Infinite Immortality and Invincibility because he feels like it, and the win conditions don't make sense because they depend on factors other than his arbitrary whim and desire, and anything that happens to him in the game is unfair and wrong.
So he takes the board and the pieces and declares his new rules as the Real Rules, and he loudly asserts that because in the vague, poorly defined world of His Rules, His Rules are law, because only His Rules conform to his undefined requirements. And Rule number One is that all Rules Are Made Up, unless they are His Rules, in which case they are Real Rules. Rule number Two is that anything he comes up with on the spot is a valid new rule, and all old rules are invalid, because they were created outside the paradigm of this new rule set. And despite acknowledging that all Old Rules were made up, he is unable to acknowledge that his new rules are made up, and that they make even less sense, are incoherent and contradictory even in context of the tiny New Rules vision, and that even the game board and pieces are not valid parts of the game, because they were made without regard for the New Rules. This is about as apt an analogy can be made for describing postmodernism in a nut shell, despite its multitude of offshoots and origins and complex relationships with other poor modes of thought. See Rorty, Derrida, and Lyotard.
Hicks expertly lays out the main paradigms of postmodernism and exposes them as honestly and accurately as I imagine is possible, though not without a few mischaracterizations that I think were a bit far-fetched. The far reaches of PM thinking is illustrated, via cultural studies, feminism, collectivism, deconstructionism, sociology and power dynamics, and its partial origins in Marxism. Hicks doesn't waste time or space or words, he wants you to understand fundamentally the doctrines and the contradictions and the failures and the shortcomings of one of the most prominent, but certainly not long relevant, intellectual trends to come about. The informed individual is capable of making informed decisions. This is a simple idea postmodernism wouldn't agree with, but it's this idea that will eventually lead to postmodernism becoming the laughing stock mullet of philosophy. (less)
Hicks is perhaps not very charitable or gentle in his handling of past thinkers who have in some way impacted what we today see as postmodernism, but he presents a well researched history of the intellectual thought that brought us the Enlightenment, and provides an equally compelling and well informed history of what would become the anti-intellectual response to modernism's Age of Enlightenment: postmodernism. He fleshes it out with the thinkers responsible for such dogmatic and irrational modes of thinking, and outlines their chain of influence and the perplexing logic they espouse in the face of reality. Some of these thinkers are even associated with Enlightenment era thought, and it's interesting to see how their ideas were used by others in the development of what eventually came to be known as postmodern philosophy.
Explaining and analyzing the philosophy is not a trivial problem, and this is magnified by the turbulent discussions that are currently in fashion. Whenever one attempts to criticize postmodernism in anything other than delicate and roundabout postmodernist terms, inevitably a fellow with a non-ironic CCCP t-shirt pops up to say, "That isn't postmodernism," or, "Postmodernism is an artistic and literary movement," or, "Kant was not a postmodernist, so how could his work possibly contribute to any of the postmodern landscape?" or, "Postmodernism and Marxism are completely unrelated and have nothing in common!" This is postmodernizing the discussion.
An anti-intellectual trend that I thought had merely existed for a few decades in fact has roots reaching back over a hundred years, sometimes coming from not so wild or radical sources. One of the most surprising connections Hicks draws is between Nietzsche and postmodernism. I've seen people try to dismiss this. But having read a decent amount of Nietzsche myself, I realize that it is impossible to dismiss this connection. The relationship is blatant. Nietzsche's perspectivism is not merely a seed, but the tree trunk upon which much of postmodern philosophy is built. Perspectivism is the direct ancestor of such poorly grounded modern notions as social constructivism, relativism, and subjectivism.
And Hicks touches on other unexpected ancestors to postmodern thought, some of which were rather reasonable or thoughtful. The transformation of once thoughtful ideas into their reactionary and irrational components, particularly within different cultural contexts, designed specifically to deflect the logical criticisms of socialism's weaknesses by developing an inherently useless and contradictory process of anti-logic, can lead to some bizarre conclusions that are not only unable to explain anything within view of objective reality, but are celebrated for their inability to do so. For it is postmodernism's driving purpose to bring weight and some form of credence to ideas and values that are fundamentally flawed, and that are incapable of being defended through established modes of logic and reason. Doing so requires the abandonment of reason and the adoption of child like and amateurish thinking that I think can only be summarized as anti-thinking.
Anti-thinking is not the same as non-thinking, which is the act of doing nothing. If we look at thinking as driving, then non-thinking is simply sitting still, perhaps not even being inside the vehicle. But anti-thinking is then akin to intentionally driving through a half mile of hazard cones, side-rails, and straight off a bridge. The hazard cones, the side-rails, the bridge, the gravity that pulls one into the river, to the postmodern anti-thinker all of these are merely constructs, subjective interpretations of reality based on a struggling power hierarchy through history coloring their perceived veracity, and therefore this path through the cones and rails and off the bridge into the water is no less valid than the calm path over the bridge to the other side, because to some distant observer we could say that the other side and the river bed are indistinguishable from one another and therefore they are kind of indistinguishable in real subjective experience, right? And while one person may interpret getting to the other side as just one step closer to the end of their journey, the person drowning at the bottom of the river could perceive this slow, panicked suffocation as one step closer to the end of their own journey. See, man? It's all about experience and our inability to really know things objectively. This is postmodernism.
One will encounter very many enthusiastic defenders of postmodernism who are not lazy, but the way they formulate arguments, points or counterpoints, process information, or even approach a topic has this residue of obsessive skepticism toward objective fact, a cynicism toward knowledge, a religious-like faith in the shaky hypotheses of power structures as the explanation for all human history and interaction, and they will almost always show that this cynicism and skepticism and faith are borne not of a hyper-awareness of the subject, but of a vast ignorance and incapability of understanding the subject. As soon as one attempts to discuss the subject with this defender, the defender jumps onto a bicycle and begins anti-thinking all over the sidewalk, or rather, expressing postmodern conjecture in every direction, declaring objective knowledge of objective reality impossible, and therefore all ideas and thoughts equally valid and equally subordinate to social conditions.
This goes a long way toward explaining why the criticisms of this work are largely leveled by those steeped in the blind dogmatism being criticized, infected with many of the same shortcomings in their thought and information processing. You see this when evangelicals criticize works of atheist thinkers, and their greatest arguments are, "These men are not familiar with the Bible!" Perhaps not as familiar as you, no. But a strong familiarity with the Bible is not a prerequisite for pointing out the many weaknesses, flaws, and absurdities of religious thought.
Postmodernism, as an ideology, a philosophy, a mode of thought, is a conundrum that provides nothing of value to intellectual discourse, and prides itself in that. Nothing can be valuable in postmodernist ideation, which probably sounds profound to a high-schooler. But seriously pondering that concept for a few moments ought to shine some light on why postmodernism not only doesn't, but can't, provide a worthwhile way of thinking about things. Only through irrational pseudo-intellectual and contradictory exercises is postmodernism capable of forwarding the ideas it holds sacred. That is to say, postmodernism is only validated by postmodernism, and even then, only by playing by a different set of rules than it subjects the rest of the intellectual world to. Any idea that cannot stand up to the same criticisms that its proponents level at other ideas, and instead requires a new criteria on which to be evaluated, is a joke. Maybe not even a joke, but a punchline without a joke. Hicks factually and carefully explains the origins and causes of postmodern thought and how it has become an unfortunate cornerstone in much modern thought.
Postmodernism's irrationality and deep seated confusion about knowledge is only the beginning, as anyone who's had the misfortune of engaging with postmodern practitioners will readily confess. The plethora of counterproductive subfields developed in the realm of PM, the intellectually irresponsible academics who perpetuate faulty takes on our senses and our ability to understand our world, the near infinite pages of vapid circular reasoning and bad philosophy practiced by its adherents, the countless abuses of, and attacks on, science and scientific rationality, among so many other things, are some of the sad fashions that are championed by the distraction known as postmodernism. And it would be fine if these attacks or criticisms were informed or based on a sound understanding of the very things being criticized -- but they uniformly are not.
Postmodernists are like the child playing a board game who doesn't understand the rules, no matter how often and how slowly they're explained, and is unable to make progress through the game. He objects that these rules are completely made-up, which sounds like an astute (for a child) if pointless observation until you realize he isn't talking only about the rules of the game, but that he also thinks the numbers on the die are made up because they can't possibly represent anything, and that the tumble of the die is determined by oppressive power structures, and that the colors on the board are unfair to him, and that the images on the cards are only representations of reality and therefore they don't represent anything meaningful, so he can interpret a card of Suffering Poison Damage and Enfeeblement as a card of Infinite Immortality and Invincibility because he feels like it, and the win conditions don't make sense because they depend on factors other than his arbitrary whim and desire, and anything that happens to him in the game is unfair and wrong.
So he takes the board and the pieces and declares his new rules as the Real Rules, and he loudly asserts that because in the vague, poorly defined world of His Rules, His Rules are law, because only His Rules conform to his undefined requirements. And Rule number One is that all Rules Are Made Up, unless they are His Rules, in which case they are Real Rules. Rule number Two is that anything he comes up with on the spot is a valid new rule, and all old rules are invalid, because they were created outside the paradigm of this new rule set. And despite acknowledging that all Old Rules were made up, he is unable to acknowledge that his new rules are made up, and that they make even less sense, are incoherent and contradictory even in context of the tiny New Rules vision, and that even the game board and pieces are not valid parts of the game, because they were made without regard for the New Rules. This is about as apt an analogy can be made for describing postmodernism in a nut shell, despite its multitude of offshoots and origins and complex relationships with other poor modes of thought. See Rorty, Derrida, and Lyotard.
Hicks expertly lays out the main paradigms of postmodernism and exposes them as honestly and accurately as I imagine is possible, though not without a few mischaracterizations that I think were a bit far-fetched. The far reaches of PM thinking is illustrated, via cultural studies, feminism, collectivism, deconstructionism, sociology and power dynamics, and its partial origins in Marxism. Hicks doesn't waste time or space or words, he wants you to understand fundamentally the doctrines and the contradictions and the failures and the shortcomings of one of the most prominent, but certainly not long relevant, intellectual trends to come about. The informed individual is capable of making informed decisions. This is a simple idea postmodernism wouldn't agree with, but it's this idea that will eventually lead to postmodernism becoming the laughing stock mullet of philosophy. (less)
Hicks's history of Kantian philosophy is competent, but his constant Ayn Rand libertarian attacks on the Left are tiresome. Turns out that when he says "socialism collapsed", he means "Michel Foucault felt disillusioned when he learned about Stalin's mass murders in the late 50s". (less)
Reading Stephen Hicks' Explaining Postmodernism left me wondering whether (some) people haven't become too smart for their own good, yet also reminded me of the adage that a smart person is not the same as a wise person.
In this book, Mr. Hicks traces postmodernism back to its intellectual roots. For those unfamiliar with the subject, postmodernism is the twentieth-century philosophical movement, still dominant and pervasive in academia today and with tentacles reaching deeply into our wider societies, that contends that man is unable to make objective notions about truth, reason and human nature, and that any such claims must be the product of his socio-economic, historical, cultural, gender and ethnic circumstances. The foundation of this school of thought, Hicks argues, was laid two hundred years ago by Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason was an effort to protect his Christian faith from attack by early Enlightenment philosophy. In an exquisite historical and intellectual overview of German philosophy, Hicks follows the bloodline from Kant to Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and ultimately to Martin Heidegger, who was in turn a key influence on the twentieth-century postmodernists.
The author proceeds to do the same with socialism, which started with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a contemporary of Kant, and worked its way through the ages in the writings of Hegel, Herder, Marx, Fichte, Spengler and Junger, all of whom provided fertilizer for the writings of Heidegger. In case you were wondering why this list includes "Men of the Right", that's because Hicks identifies the collectivist Left and Right, correctly in my opinion, as merely two sides of the same coin. The difference is that national socialism was left entirely discredited in 1945, while its equally ugly twin brother wasn't until at least 1956, when the Soviets crushed any illusion about their true intentions one might still have had at that point in time.
It would seem paradoxical for postmodernism to marry socialism: After all, the former denies any claim to impartial knowledge or absolute truth, so one would expect its adherents to be found all over the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the two strains ultimately came together in the twentieth century, when all the great postmodernist thinkers, Derrida and Foucault included, were hardcore socialists at the same time.
Hicks argues that the crisis of socialism lay at the root of this phenomenon. While Marx had argued that the rise of capitalism would inevitably lead to an ever greater schism between the rich and poor in society, in reality the opposite was true and the middle classes were prospering. In fact, by the mid-twentieth century the middle classes were living lives of which the kings and emperors of yesteryear could only have dreamed. At the same time, it became patently obvious to any impartial observer that life behind the Iron Curtain was an absolute nightmare. The house of cards came thundering down when the Soviets invaded Hungary in '56 to crush the popular uprising against the socialist rulers in that country.
Socialism had always been the product of reason and logic, starting from the idea that the Marxist revolution would inevitably follow in every capitalist society and ending with the illusion that smart technocrats could engineer their nations into workers' paradises. When all that got shattered, postmodernism proved the refuge for the disillusioned socialists. It became, in Hicks' words, "a symptom of the far Left’s crisis of faith," and "a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism."
Some of the reviewers of Explaining Postmodernism have been predictable in their criticism: The author is an Objectivist (gasp!) who wrote a book critical of the Left, while not, in fact, "explaining postmodernism". These detractors ought to be ignored, because Hicks explains it all very well and correctly identifies it to be a phenomenon of the Left. This observation is by no means revolutionary (if you'll pardon the expression).
Nevertheless, the book is not without its flaws. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Hicks has little use for religion. He starts from the premise that the early Enlightenment thinkers, with their emphasis on reason and logic and rejection of religious superstition, had it right, and provided the foundations of our modern democracy and ordered liberty. Hicks shows to have a blind spot here. Because Christianity is not on his radar, he never ponders the question whether it serves a function in a modern democratic, capitalist and free society, let alone whether the latter can even survive without the moral foundation provided by the former. Thinkers such as Tocqueville, a keen student of democracy, argued it couldn't. Given that the Enlightenment grew more radical and anti-religious with every new generation of thinkers, it's fair to ask whether it, and the modern societies it spawned in the West, weren't top-heavy from the beginning. (No, I don't necessarily have the answer to that.)
Secondly, the roots of postmodernism can arguably be traced back to the first days of the Enlightenment, not just to the later "counter-Enlightenment philosophy" of Kant. Thomas Hobbes, who is not even mentioned in the book until footnote 67, contended that, since human life in the beginning was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", man started forming societies governed by the rule of law out of sheer self-interest. It happened in reaction to his fear of violent death. In other words, to Hobbes the social contract was conventional, not natural. This marks the first departure from the natural law doctrines found in classical philosophy and Christianity.
But the greatness of an outstanding book like Explaining Postmodernism lies in its invitation for us to conduct a civil and rational argument about what postmodernism is and where it originated, devoid of the ad hominems, reductio ad Hitlerum, cries of "racism" and other base cannon fodder employed to win 'debates' in our postmodern world these days. Stephen Hicks has done us a great service here. I highly recommend this book to anybody interested in the topic. (less)
In this book, Mr. Hicks traces postmodernism back to its intellectual roots. For those unfamiliar with the subject, postmodernism is the twentieth-century philosophical movement, still dominant and pervasive in academia today and with tentacles reaching deeply into our wider societies, that contends that man is unable to make objective notions about truth, reason and human nature, and that any such claims must be the product of his socio-economic, historical, cultural, gender and ethnic circumstances. The foundation of this school of thought, Hicks argues, was laid two hundred years ago by Immanuel Kant, whose Critique of Pure Reason was an effort to protect his Christian faith from attack by early Enlightenment philosophy. In an exquisite historical and intellectual overview of German philosophy, Hicks follows the bloodline from Kant to Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, and ultimately to Martin Heidegger, who was in turn a key influence on the twentieth-century postmodernists.
The author proceeds to do the same with socialism, which started with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a contemporary of Kant, and worked its way through the ages in the writings of Hegel, Herder, Marx, Fichte, Spengler and Junger, all of whom provided fertilizer for the writings of Heidegger. In case you were wondering why this list includes "Men of the Right", that's because Hicks identifies the collectivist Left and Right, correctly in my opinion, as merely two sides of the same coin. The difference is that national socialism was left entirely discredited in 1945, while its equally ugly twin brother wasn't until at least 1956, when the Soviets crushed any illusion about their true intentions one might still have had at that point in time.
It would seem paradoxical for postmodernism to marry socialism: After all, the former denies any claim to impartial knowledge or absolute truth, so one would expect its adherents to be found all over the political spectrum. Nevertheless, the two strains ultimately came together in the twentieth century, when all the great postmodernist thinkers, Derrida and Foucault included, were hardcore socialists at the same time.
Hicks argues that the crisis of socialism lay at the root of this phenomenon. While Marx had argued that the rise of capitalism would inevitably lead to an ever greater schism between the rich and poor in society, in reality the opposite was true and the middle classes were prospering. In fact, by the mid-twentieth century the middle classes were living lives of which the kings and emperors of yesteryear could only have dreamed. At the same time, it became patently obvious to any impartial observer that life behind the Iron Curtain was an absolute nightmare. The house of cards came thundering down when the Soviets invaded Hungary in '56 to crush the popular uprising against the socialist rulers in that country.
Socialism had always been the product of reason and logic, starting from the idea that the Marxist revolution would inevitably follow in every capitalist society and ending with the illusion that smart technocrats could engineer their nations into workers' paradises. When all that got shattered, postmodernism proved the refuge for the disillusioned socialists. It became, in Hicks' words, "a symptom of the far Left’s crisis of faith," and "a result of using skeptical epistemology to justify the personal leap of faith necessary to continue believing in socialism."
Some of the reviewers of Explaining Postmodernism have been predictable in their criticism: The author is an Objectivist (gasp!) who wrote a book critical of the Left, while not, in fact, "explaining postmodernism". These detractors ought to be ignored, because Hicks explains it all very well and correctly identifies it to be a phenomenon of the Left. This observation is by no means revolutionary (if you'll pardon the expression).
Nevertheless, the book is not without its flaws. It becomes clear pretty quickly that Hicks has little use for religion. He starts from the premise that the early Enlightenment thinkers, with their emphasis on reason and logic and rejection of religious superstition, had it right, and provided the foundations of our modern democracy and ordered liberty. Hicks shows to have a blind spot here. Because Christianity is not on his radar, he never ponders the question whether it serves a function in a modern democratic, capitalist and free society, let alone whether the latter can even survive without the moral foundation provided by the former. Thinkers such as Tocqueville, a keen student of democracy, argued it couldn't. Given that the Enlightenment grew more radical and anti-religious with every new generation of thinkers, it's fair to ask whether it, and the modern societies it spawned in the West, weren't top-heavy from the beginning. (No, I don't necessarily have the answer to that.)
Secondly, the roots of postmodernism can arguably be traced back to the first days of the Enlightenment, not just to the later "counter-Enlightenment philosophy" of Kant. Thomas Hobbes, who is not even mentioned in the book until footnote 67, contended that, since human life in the beginning was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", man started forming societies governed by the rule of law out of sheer self-interest. It happened in reaction to his fear of violent death. In other words, to Hobbes the social contract was conventional, not natural. This marks the first departure from the natural law doctrines found in classical philosophy and Christianity.
But the greatness of an outstanding book like Explaining Postmodernism lies in its invitation for us to conduct a civil and rational argument about what postmodernism is and where it originated, devoid of the ad hominems, reductio ad Hitlerum, cries of "racism" and other base cannon fodder employed to win 'debates' in our postmodern world these days. Stephen Hicks has done us a great service here. I highly recommend this book to anybody interested in the topic. (less)
Stay away from this book unless you are looking to confuse yourself to the concept of postmodernism. This is textbook example of poor scholarship.
I couldn't finish this book. The chapters I read so misrepresented the authors and their positions, I would have no idea what to accept as valid. In some cases, it was apparent that Hicks could not have read the work he was 'explaining'; rather, he was engaged in some sort of game of telephone, and his explanation and ensuing critique were of some nonexistent strawman.
NB: It is no coincident that Jordan B Peterson espouses views in lockstep with Hicks. It may be that this is the only resource Peterson has even read on postmoderns or postmodernism. It is doubtful he has even read an actual work by a postmodern or poststructural author. I might find the same to be true for Hicks. (less)
I couldn't finish this book. The chapters I read so misrepresented the authors and their positions, I would have no idea what to accept as valid. In some cases, it was apparent that Hicks could not have read the work he was 'explaining'; rather, he was engaged in some sort of game of telephone, and his explanation and ensuing critique were of some nonexistent strawman.
NB: It is no coincident that Jordan B Peterson espouses views in lockstep with Hicks. It may be that this is the only resource Peterson has even read on postmoderns or postmodernism. It is doubtful he has even read an actual work by a postmodern or poststructural author. I might find the same to be true for Hicks. (less)
Its superficial and useless !
This might be one of the most important books for understanding our world today. Postmodern thought has been making inroads into the mainstream of western culture for decades, but we're only now beginning to see how pernicious it actually is. Its claims and strategies aren't easy to understand - let alone combat - unless you understand its philosophical pedigree. Stephen Hicks does a phenomenal job in laying that out in a way that's extremely readable without sacrificing depth.
The book came out in 2004 but it feels far more relevant today. I'd be curious to see what Hicks thinks of the rise of Trump in the US and the revival of nationalism across Europe. Part of his thesis is that postmodernism rose from the ashes of left wing socialism (and especially communism's) failures in the 20th century. The failure of left wing socialism was gradual and allowed for its basic tenets to adjust and survive and morph into postmodernism. Right wing socialism, on the other hand, failed so spectacularly in the form of European fascism that there was no time or moral opportunity for anything other than a few fringe groups to carry forward its ideas. At least in the US, that opened the way for the conservative movement to become a conglomeration of anti-postmodernists. The right was invested - to various degrees - in the tenets of liberal democracy and the preservation of western civilization.
In my view, that may very well be changing. Just as the left was taken over by postmodernist thought following the 1960's, the right seems poised to do the same. With Trump the American right has made a major gamble that goes far beyond his temperament or competence for the presidency. The gamble is that he won't usher in the revival of right wing (national) socialism. To be clear, I'm not making the tired claim that Trump is some sort of neo-Nazi anymore than those on the left are communist authoritarians. However, just as the postmodern left is the heir to the failed philosophies of left wing socialism, Trump and the new wave of nationalism may prove to be the heirs of right wing socialism, thus ushering in a right wing version of postmodernism.
As someone convinced more than ever of how pernicious postmodern thought is, that scares the hell out of me. Right wing postmodernism will ultimately prove as hostile to western values as the left wing variety has turned out to be. The left has spent the better part of a century becoming nakedly hostile to western values. If the right follows suit, those of us who actually care about western culture will find ourselves in a very bad place.
If I've strayed from actually reviewing the book, it's only because this is the effect the work has. It will have you thinking long after you've put it down. I can't recommend it highly enough. Read it and then convince others to do likewise. (less)
The book came out in 2004 but it feels far more relevant today. I'd be curious to see what Hicks thinks of the rise of Trump in the US and the revival of nationalism across Europe. Part of his thesis is that postmodernism rose from the ashes of left wing socialism (and especially communism's) failures in the 20th century. The failure of left wing socialism was gradual and allowed for its basic tenets to adjust and survive and morph into postmodernism. Right wing socialism, on the other hand, failed so spectacularly in the form of European fascism that there was no time or moral opportunity for anything other than a few fringe groups to carry forward its ideas. At least in the US, that opened the way for the conservative movement to become a conglomeration of anti-postmodernists. The right was invested - to various degrees - in the tenets of liberal democracy and the preservation of western civilization.
In my view, that may very well be changing. Just as the left was taken over by postmodernist thought following the 1960's, the right seems poised to do the same. With Trump the American right has made a major gamble that goes far beyond his temperament or competence for the presidency. The gamble is that he won't usher in the revival of right wing (national) socialism. To be clear, I'm not making the tired claim that Trump is some sort of neo-Nazi anymore than those on the left are communist authoritarians. However, just as the postmodern left is the heir to the failed philosophies of left wing socialism, Trump and the new wave of nationalism may prove to be the heirs of right wing socialism, thus ushering in a right wing version of postmodernism.
As someone convinced more than ever of how pernicious postmodern thought is, that scares the hell out of me. Right wing postmodernism will ultimately prove as hostile to western values as the left wing variety has turned out to be. The left has spent the better part of a century becoming nakedly hostile to western values. If the right follows suit, those of us who actually care about western culture will find ourselves in a very bad place.
If I've strayed from actually reviewing the book, it's only because this is the effect the work has. It will have you thinking long after you've put it down. I can't recommend it highly enough. Read it and then convince others to do likewise. (less)
Why did an anti-enlightenment, anti-reason movement called "postmodernism" develop in the mid 20th century? And why were all the leading theorists of postmodernism from the far left wing of politics? Hicks presents a brilliant answer to these questions in a very clear and easy to read style. He argues that postmodernism emerged as a rhetorical strategy of committed socialists once the failure of socialism could no longer be ignored. Rather than change their views, many devoted socialists chose to move the goalposts. Instead of acknowledging flaws in socialist theory, they rejected logical consistency itself. Instead of acknowledging that socialist countries failed to raise living standards whereas capitalist economies did, they changed the critique of capitalism to be all about relative inequality. The result is postmodernism: an anti-rational critique of the entire enlightenment project. Postmodernism is a mess of contradictions, but Hicks' analysis makes sense of it. Also, you can get both the book and audiobook free on his website! http://www.stephenhicks.org/publicati... (less)
A fascinating thesis, with two surprising claims. First that postmodernism's abandonment of reason is the endpoint of a line of philosophy that begins with Kant, who (in Hick's account) was the first to denigrate reason. Ironically, Kant was attempting to carve out a safe space (pun intended) for religious faith. But without reason to partner with faith, faith can become capricious and egoistic. Second, the crisis of socialism provided the need for postmodernism's leap into the dark of nihilism.
Postmodernists have, up to now, been uniformly people of the left. The capitalist/globalist engine of growth, despite its inequality and seeming indifference to individuals, has performed an unprecedented humanitarian act in the last 50 years by lifting vast numbers of people out of miserable poverty.
With the very recent rise of a nihilistic, anti-liberty, populist right, postmodernism may be getting a balance and, dare I say egalitarianism, it never wanted. Hicks book is a bit too old to address this startling change, so I will: just as the left lost its religion a century ago and turned to nihilism, so now (in Western countries) is the right. It's not a pretty sight. (less)
Postmodernists have, up to now, been uniformly people of the left. The capitalist/globalist engine of growth, despite its inequality and seeming indifference to individuals, has performed an unprecedented humanitarian act in the last 50 years by lifting vast numbers of people out of miserable poverty.
With the very recent rise of a nihilistic, anti-liberty, populist right, postmodernism may be getting a balance and, dare I say egalitarianism, it never wanted. Hicks book is a bit too old to address this startling change, so I will: just as the left lost its religion a century ago and turned to nihilism, so now (in Western countries) is the right. It's not a pretty sight. (less)
This book is an excellent introduction to both the philosophical foundations of Postmodernism and the history of its battle with the Enlightenment outlook. The author analyzes the views of specific philosophers who provided the ideas that led to contemporary postmodern thinkers; including brief summaries of the views of each. Comparative charts are provided along the way that are helpful in assessing different views and changes in philosophy over time. He elucidates the links between the ideas of philosophers and makes connections; for example, he identifies the nexus between postmodern thinkers and leftism.
The book is structured with four chapters on intellectual history preceded by an introductory essay on the definition of Postmodernism, and followed by a concluding section that comments on the current state of affairs. While critical of the post-modern project, it is a thorough and fair presentation of Postmodernism from a pro-enlightenment individualist point of view.
(less)
The book is structured with four chapters on intellectual history preceded by an introductory essay on the definition of Postmodernism, and followed by a concluding section that comments on the current state of affairs. While critical of the post-modern project, it is a thorough and fair presentation of Postmodernism from a pro-enlightenment individualist point of view.
(less)
A very lucid and devastating criticque of contemporary postmodernism. The author (or so it seems, I am not familiar with his other works) is pro-individual, pro-liberty and pro-capitalist, but even if you disagree with all three, you will find this book useful. The survey of the roots of modern postmodernism in earlier anti-enlightenment philosophies is very informative and well worth reading.
And its only 4.99 on kindle, so you can put it on your phone and read bits and pieces at leisure (which is more or less what I did). (less)
And its only 4.99 on kindle, so you can put it on your phone and read bits and pieces at leisure (which is more or less what I did). (less)
If I could I would give this book a 4.5. It was a fantastic elucidation of traditional Marxist, Neo-Marxist, and Post-modernist ideas. It also provided a good amount of background from thinkers such as Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Kant, Nietzsche, and other authors who influenced 19th and 20th century thought. The criticism of Post-modernist and Marxist thought is, in my opinion, mostly sound. For my money, it identifies a lot of what is wrong, or at the very least, inefficient and inadequate, with some of the popular ideas that has permeated throughout 21st century society. (less)
No comments:
Post a Comment