Postmodernism Part 2

Atlas Society
Published on Mar 3, 2015

Postmodernism became the leading intellectual movement in the late twentieth century. It has replaced modernism, the philosophy of the Enlightenment. For modernism’s principles of objective reality, reason, and individualism, it has substituted its own precepts of relative feeling, social construction, and groupism. This substitution has now spread to major cultural institutions such as education, journalism, and the law, where it manifests itself as race and gender politics, advocacy journalism, political correctness, multiculturalism, and the rejection of science and technology.

At the 1998 Summer Seminar of the Institute for Objectivist Studies (now called The Atlas Society), Dr. Hicks offered a systematic analysis and dissection of the Postmodernist movement and outlined the core Objectivist tenets needed to rejuvenate the Enlightenment spirit.

(Watch Part 2 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhK6X... )

ABOUT STEPHEN HICKS:
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher who teaches at Rockford University, where he also directs the Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. Hicks earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees from the University of Guelph, Canada, and his Ph.D. from Indiana University, Bloomington. His doctoral thesis was a defense of foundationalism.

Hicks is the author of two books and a documentary. "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault." He argues that postmodernism is best understood as a rhetorical strategy of intellectuals and academics on the far-Left of the political spectrum to the failure of socialism and communism.

His documentary and book "Nietzsche and the Nazis" is an examination of the ideological and philosophical roots of National Socialism, particularly how Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas were used, and in some cases misused, by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis to justify their beliefs and practices. This was released in 2006 as a video documentary and then in 2010 as a book.

Additionally, Hicks has published articles and essays on a range of subjects, including free speech in academia, the history and development of modern art, Ayn Rand's Objectivism, business ethics, and the philosophy of education, including a series of YouTube lectures.

Hicks is also the co-editor, with David Kelley, of a critical thinking textbook, "The Art of Reasoning: Readings for Logical Analysis."

00:00
trying to explain how we got from
00:03
modernism or the philosophy of the
00:04
Enlightenment to the postmodern
00:07
predicament in the first hypothesis I
00:10
was sketching involve putting
00:12
essentially epistemology at the fore and
00:15
then tracing the developments of
00:17
epistemology primarily
00:19
over the course of 200 years let's the
00:22
idea is that what you end up with is a
00:24
kind of a dead end of skepticism which
00:27
engenders a subjectivism which then
00:30
engenders our relativism and since
00:33
relativism is a key part of the
00:34
postmodern strategy this seems like a
00:36
natural fit so then I posed a problem
00:39
for that explanation the problem was
00:41
that all post modernists to a man and
00:44
woman are socialist and fairly far left
00:47
socialist and that's a problem because
00:50
if you would start from subjectivism you
00:54
would expect people to be making
00:55
commitments all over the map instead
00:58
what we find is the commitments are
00:59
narrowly directed to one part of the
01:02
political spectrum and so there's got to
01:04
be another factor here to explain this
01:07
now another part of the problem that I
01:10
left you with was that socialism has
01:12
traditionally been expended on modernist
01:16
grounds the claim was that socialism was
01:19
provable by the evidence by the logic so
01:24
what you have been somehow is a shift a
01:26
major shift in strategy from modernist
01:29
epistemological groundings for socialism
01:32
to socialism being part of this highly
01:36
relativistic postmodern strategy so then
01:39
the question is why is this the case
01:45
all right I did my homework actually a
01:47
long time ago
01:48
so I'll just plunge in here since
01:53
socialism was put forth on modernist
01:55
grounds this meant that it made in
01:57
effect number of core assertions or key
02:00
propositions that it thought would be
02:02
provable by evidence and logic and I've
02:06
got a slide here that includes the forum
02:13
if you have socialists to defend
02:16
socialism they'll typically offer two
02:18
strands of argument one is a more moral
02:20
strand they will argue a pair of theses
02:23
one that capitalism is deeply immoral
02:26
and then there are a number of reasons
02:28
why it's immoral it's exploitative the
02:31
rich get rich off the back of the Torah
02:33
dicks enslave them it's warlike as part
02:37
of its imperialistic mission and so
02:38
forth socialism by contrast is humane
02:41
it's peaceful everybody gets a share or
02:45
everybody shares everyone is cooperative
02:47
as opposed to the brutal competition
02:49
that's characteristic of capitalism so
02:52
that's the first to the economic wing of
02:54
argument is that capitalism ultimately
02:57
is unproductive it's doing pretty good
02:59
so far but because of its internal
03:01
contradictions and problems it will
03:03
ultimately collapse it will sow the
03:05
seeds of its own destruction socialist
03:08
economies by contrast will be more
03:10
productive and they will usher in a new
03:13
era of prosperity now this then means
03:16
that socialism has made some definite
03:19
theses that can then be tested against
03:21
the evidence and given logical scrutiny
03:26
the problem then is that every single
03:29
one of these claims has been extensively
03:31
refuted both in theory and in practice
03:34
we've had over a hundred years of
03:38
socialist argumentation several
03:41
socialist experiments and in each case
03:43
they reach dismal failure and it's
03:47
brutal
03:48
from our perspective how thoroughly
03:50
socialism has been discredited in theory
03:53
if you focus on the free market
03:55
economists people like Musa
03:57
Hayek and Friedman have made the case
03:59
they've shown how markets are more
04:00
efficient and they've shown conversely
04:03
how socialists command economies are
04:04
bound to fail necessarily they have to
04:07
distinguish socialists such as Robert
04:09
Hale Bruner have conceded in print that
04:11
that debate is over and that Mises and
04:13
Hayek won in theory the political debate
04:18
is a little more up for grabs
04:20
but the leading thesis I think at least
04:22
on my reading is that some form of
04:24
liberalism is the leading contender that
04:26
if you're going to protect human rights
04:28
in some broad form you've got to have
04:30
some form of liberalism whether it's a
04:32
more conservative version or a more
04:34
communitarian version or a more
04:36
libertarian version that's where the
04:38
debate is it's all shifted to there the
04:41
empirical evidence has been much harder
04:43
on socialism than the theoretical debate
04:46
economically in practice every single
04:48
socialistic country has failed and
04:51
failed dismally and in practice every
04:55
country that is by and large capitalist
04:57
has become prosperous and increasingly
05:00
prosperous and there's no end in sight
05:02
here politically in practice every
05:05
single capitalistic country has a good
05:08
record on human rights issues respecting
05:11
rights and freedoms by and large making
05:13
it possible for people to put together
05:15
meaningful fruitful lives socialism has
05:18
time and time again proved to be more
05:21
brutal than the worst dictatorships in
05:24
history every socialist regime has
05:27
collapsed into dictatorship and starts
05:29
killing people on an unprecedented scale
05:32
every single one produces dissident
05:35
writers like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and
05:37
the end Chang who documented from a
05:39
first-person perspective or first-hand
05:41
perspective what exactly goes on not if
05:47
you have that handout the green one from
05:49
yesterday
05:51
and I've got one piece of empirical data
05:59
yeah the green one
06:00
on the the back down at the bottom worth
06:02
it was the second table so the political
06:04
scientist named RJ Romo who has done a
06:07
lot of work in the trenches trying to
06:08
cap come up with statistics that would
06:11
empirically ground or not socialist
06:13
games and so on and what you find is in
06:17
two fronts if you can compare the
06:19
liberal democratic countries on the
06:22
record of peacefulness versus war
06:24
likeness and you can compare Human
06:30
Rights records that's the other one
06:31
house groping for you can compare how
06:33
much liberal damat your democratic
06:36
countries protect their own people and
06:38
look after them and leave them free
06:39
versus at the other end till them right
06:41
and not make it possible for them to
06:43
lead fruitful lives and if you just go
06:45
through this one here this one here is
06:49
the one that scares me a lot in
06:53
democratic countries more people have
06:54
been killed by war and killed by their
06:56
own government authoritarian governments
06:59
the numbers are still we're actually
07:02
they reverse the other way right if
07:03
twice as many people killed by the
07:05
government as killed in international
07:07
wars and totalitarian nations the
07:10
numbers are just horrifying
07:11
and so in here you've got of those 138
07:17
million you'd have the six million in
07:18
the holocaust killed by the Nazis but
07:21
that's kind of small potatoes compared
07:23
to Stalin compared to Mao and so on it's
07:26
interesting that the Vietnam War for
07:27
example if you look at those statistics
07:28
which was pretty nasty I think it was
07:31
about 1.2 million people were killed
07:33
during the war on both sides but in the
07:36
immediate eight-year period after the
07:39
war ended the Vietnamese government
07:41
killed 2 million so war was better for
07:45
the Vietnamese than peace ok
07:51
now these statistics are at least as
07:55
Objectivists and people in the free
07:57
market side of the debate in the liberal
07:59
side of the debate we suspect that those
08:01
statistics are going to be there when
08:03
the data comes in and so they come in
08:05
and we say well yeah of course that's
08:06
what we expect that's terrible but
08:08
that's that's the way it is what I am
08:11
emphasizing these points for is to try
08:13
to get us to imagine what kind of a
08:16
psychological impact the sum total of
08:19
this refutation and fury and practice in
08:21
politics and economics must have had on
08:24
a socialist a true believer socialist by
08:29
the 1960s there had been over a hundred
08:32
years of argumentation in economics and
08:34
in politics and the Socialists could
08:36
sense that they were losing and by the
08:39
1960s it was clear that the great
08:42
socialist experiments were failing
08:43
nastily so put yourself in the shoes of
08:47
a smart more or less open to the
08:50
evidence socialist and you are
08:54
confronted with all this data how do you
08:57
react you've got a deep commitment to
09:00
socialism you feel that it's true you
09:02
want it to be true you've pinned all of
09:05
your dreams of a peaceful and a
09:07
prosperous society on socialism and all
09:11
of your hopes for curing any ills that
09:13
you see in current society now this is a
09:16
moment of truth for anyone who has
09:18
experienced the agony of a deeply
09:21
cherish hypothesis run aground on the
09:23
rocks of reality what do you do do you
09:27
abandon your theory and go with the
09:29
facts or do you find or try to find a
09:32
way to maintain your theory and your
09:35
belief in it there's a historically
09:38
parallel example that I alluded to
09:39
earlier there last yesterday and I want
09:42
to draw a parallel here I think in the
09:44
1960s the academic left was facing the
09:47
same dilemma that religious thinkers
09:49
were thinking or facing in the 1700s the
09:52
late 1700s in both cases the evidence
09:55
was overwhelmingly against them during
09:58
the Enlightenment religions natural
09:59
theology arguments
10:01
widely seen as being full of holes and
10:03
science was rapidly filling the gap it
10:05
was giving naturalistic and opposite
10:08
explanations for the kinds of things
10:10
that religion had traditionally
10:11
explained religion was again in danger
10:13
of being laughed out of intellectual
10:16
debate by the nineteen sixties the
10:18
left's arguments for the fruitfulness
10:20
and decency of socialism were failing in
10:22
theory and practice and capitalism was
10:24
rapidly increasing everyone's standard
10:26
of living and showing itself respectful
10:28
of human freedoms by the late 1700s
10:31
religious thinkers had a choice accept
10:35
the evidence and logic as the ultimate
10:37
Court of Appeals and thereby reject
10:40
their deeply cherished religious ideals
10:42
or here's the strategy you can reject
10:47
the idea that logic and evidence are the
10:49
ultimate Court of Appeal I had to deny
10:53
knowledge wrote Kant in the critique in
10:55
order to make room for faith faith
10:58
writes Kierkegaard in fear and trembling
11:01
requires the crucifixion of Reason and
11:06
so he proceeded to do that and glorify
11:08
your ration the left of thinkers of the
11:11
1960s faced the same choice as
11:13
confronted by the continuing flourishing
11:15
of capitalism and the continued poverty
11:17
and brutality they decided white conned
11:20
to limit reason to try to crucify it and
11:24
so Heidegger coming along and exalting
11:27
feeling over reason is a godsend Koons
11:31
fury Laden paradigms Quinn's pragmatic
11:35
and internalist account of language and
11:36
logic do the same thing so the idea here
11:40
is that the dominance in the Academy of
11:42
skeptical and irrationalist
11:44
epistemologies provides the academic
11:46
left with a new strategy confronted by
11:50
ruthless logic harsh evidence they have
11:53
a solution that's only logic and
11:56
evidence logic and evidence are
11:59
subjective you can't really prove
12:02
anything
12:03
feelings are deeper than logic and my
12:07
feelings say socialism so that's my
12:12
second hypothesis about the origins of
12:16
post-modernism and I call it the
12:18
Kierkegaard Ian hypothesis that
12:21
socialism is the crisis of sorry
12:23
post-modernism is the crisis of faith of
12:26
the academic left its epistemology
12:31
justifies taking a personal leap of
12:34
faith and continuing to believe your
12:36
socialist ideals all right so so far
12:41
what I've done is two things I'm tried
12:44
to account for socialism subjectivism
12:46
and relativism on the one hand and it's
12:49
monolithic left-wing politics on the
12:50
other saying that there's a deep
12:52
connection between the two now if this
12:54
is correct putting those two together
12:56
what we get with or out of this is what
12:58
I call reverse for a Simek Ian ISM
13:03
yeah lots of syllables okay now the
13:06
illusion here right is philosophers
13:08
playing games it's the connection is to
13:11
the Sophists through Simic Asst in
13:13
plato's republic all right and some post
13:16
modernist actually many of them see a
13:17
big part of their project is
13:18
rehabilitating this office hooping out a
13:20
favor for a couple of thousand years and
13:24
this makes perfectly good sense now
13:27
suppose after doing some philosophy you
13:28
come to believe truly in subjectivism
13:30
and relativism as this office do
13:32
accordingly you come to believe that
13:34
reason is derivative will and desire
13:36
rule society as a battle of competing
13:39
wills words are just tools in the power
13:41
struggle for dominance all's fair in
13:43
love and war
13:44
that's of course what the Sophists
13:46
argued twenty four hundred years ago of
13:49
the only difference then between the
13:51
Sophists and the post modernists is
13:52
whose side the post modernists are on
13:57
their Symmachus in book one of the
13:59
Republic is kind of a representative of
14:01
a fairly crude second-generation
14:03
Sophists and what we find in him is
14:06
subjectivist in relativistic arguments
14:08
marshaled in support of the claim that
14:10
justice is simply the interests of the
14:13
stronger the postmodern is coming after
14:17
two thousand years of Christianity 200
14:19
years of socialism simply reversed that
14:21
subjectivism and relativism are true
14:23
except they're on the side of the weaker
14:25
and historically oppressed just as
14:28
contrary to through Symmachus then is
14:30
the interest of the weaker I like this
14:34
hypothesis as I made it up but I think
14:41
it still leaves something out and I
14:45
think what it leaves out is some
14:47
psychological components of
14:49
post-modernism the first part of the
14:53
problem is that I find it hard to
14:55
believe that the leap of faith goes down
14:58
very far for most Potamus most post
15:01
modernists the average post modernist is
15:04
a very clever person has a PhD in the
15:07
humanities somewhere so I find it tough
15:10
to believe that or to make
15:13
psychologically real for myself the kind
15:14
of turning off of one
15:16
mind that would be necessary to make and
15:19
sustain that leap of faith maybe I need
15:21
to have an expanded understanding of
15:23
psychology but I think there's something
15:25
else going on here let me give you some
15:27
examples some fairly clear
15:30
contradictions in the postmodernist
15:32
assertions that any person who is smart
15:37
and clever has to be aware of on the one
15:41
hand all truth is relative on the other
15:44
post-modernism tells it like it really
15:47
is on the one hand all cultures are
15:51
equally deserving of respect on the
15:54
other Western culture is uniquely
15:56
destructive and bad values are
16:00
subjective but sexism and racism are
16:04
really evil technology is bad and
16:09
destructive it's unfair that some people
16:12
have more technology than others
16:19
tolerance is good and dominance is bad
16:22
but when we speaking as post modernists
16:25
are in power or is politically correct
16:27
as hell there's a common pattern here
16:31
what you have is subjectivism
16:32
and relativism in one breath dogmatic
16:35
absolutism in the next the post
16:38
modernists are not stupid and so we
16:40
can't just say they don't know that this
16:42
contradiction exists they're aware of
16:44
the contradictions and we're pointing
16:46
them out to them all the time right all
16:48
the critics now of course you can say
16:51
kind of dismissing like well that's just
16:53
a logical contradiction right and you've
16:55
got a lot stuff I took off that will
16:57
comfort you in that but I think it's one
16:59
thing to say that okay and it's another
17:02
thing to sustain it psychologically
17:05
inside so it makes me wonder which side
17:08
then of the contradiction is really
17:11
deepest or a post-modernism is it the
17:13
subjectivism rand relativism or is it
17:16
the dogmatic absolutism is that they
17:19
really believe in the relativism and
17:20
occasionally lapse into absolutism or is
17:23
the absolutism deepest and the
17:25
relativism is some
17:26
of a tactical cover or other now here's
17:29
three examples this time it's blatant
17:31
clashes between theory post modernist
17:33
theory and historical fact post
17:36
modernists will say that the rate West
17:38
is deeply racist but they know very well
17:40
that the West ended slavery for the
17:42
first time and that it's only in places
17:44
where Western ideals are making inroads
17:46
that racism is on the defensive they
17:49
will say that the West is deeply sexist
17:51
but they know very well that Western
17:53
women were the first to get to vote
17:54
contractual rights and that they have
17:57
opportunities that most of the women in
17:59
the world are we still without they will
18:02
say that the Western capitalist
18:03
countries are cruel to their poor
18:04
remember subjugating them getting rich
18:06
off them but they know very well that
18:08
the poor in the West are far far richer
18:11
than poor people in other countries both
18:13
in terms of material assets and in terms
18:15
of opportunities to improve themselves
18:18
so there's something else going on here
18:20
definitely I'm going to argue that most
18:25
post modernists don't really believe
18:27
much of what they say that the word
18:31
games the accusations and much of the
18:33
use of anger and rage that is
18:36
characteristic of their style is not a
18:38
matter of using words to state things
18:40
that they think are true but rather of
18:43
using words as weapons against an enemy
18:46
that you still hope to destroy think of
18:51
the use postmodernists will sometimes
18:53
use of science for example you find
18:55
fairly regularly Einstein's relativity
18:57
theory that shows everything is relative
19:00
quantum mechanics shows that we can't
19:03
know anything
19:04
chaos Madame mathematic shows that the
19:06
world is irrational girdle's
19:09
incompleteness theorem right we circled
19:11
all of these things now these are all
19:12
cited as proving the post modernist
19:15
epistemology but it's fairly clear
19:17
efficient when you speak to people who
19:19
enunciate these claims you've got a
19:20
graduate student in English literature
19:22
okay or some equivalent but they don't
19:26
know the science okay but they are
19:28
citing the science now there's a fun
19:32
incident Alan Sobel physicist and social
19:36
text which is a post modernist
19:39
Journal and he wrote an article showing
19:42
that all of the recent discoveries and
19:45
physics proved inexorably that
19:46
post-modernism is true submitted it
19:50
accepted published and it was all
19:53
nonsense he just wrote it to show that
19:56
post modernists don't know anything
19:58
about science and that they will just
19:59
prove anything now the reaction are they
20:01
able to say anything if they if it seems
20:04
them and so the reaction of the editors
20:06
clearly shows this they were not arguing
20:09
oh no no we think that this
20:10
interpretation of science is true they
20:12
do they had been caught out in a con
20:14
game so it can't be that they are
20:16
publishing these words because they
20:18
think they're true they are using the
20:19
words as a rhetorical weapon truth is
20:23
not the issue here
20:25
all right so we got three options that
20:27
we're trying I'm going to try out to
20:29
explain the contradiction between the
20:32
relativism on the one hand and
20:33
post-modernism and the absolutist pc
20:37
politics first option we've got is that
20:40
the relativism is the deepest part and
20:42
the absolutist politics is secondary you
20:47
could say you know qua philosophers post
20:50
modernists will preach relativism
20:51
but qua particular individuals they have
20:54
their own particular agenda and that's
20:55
what they assert absolutely the second
20:58
option is to say that the absolutist
21:00
politics is the deepest and the
21:02
relativism is a tactic that's put on in
21:06
order to advance those politics and how
21:08
that would work we can get into the
21:10
third option is that both the relativism
21:14
and the absolutism do in fact exist in
21:17
the postmodernist mind and the
21:19
contradiction just does not bother them
21:21
psychologically I'm going to rule out
21:25
the first one as a possibility the
21:27
relativism can't be the deepest thing
21:29
simply because the politics is so
21:31
uniform I think that argument shows that
21:34
post-modernism is first a political
21:36
movement it's always a political
21:39
movement that has only recently come to
21:41
relativistic arguments so let's try the
21:43
second option that post-modernism is
21:45
first about politics and only
21:47
secondarily about relative this to be
21:49
pista mala ji
21:51
so try with the idea that the
21:53
postmodernists are not relativists at
21:55
all that the relativism is part of a
21:58
political strategy a kind of a
22:00
Machiavellian realpolitik thrown in to
22:04
throw the opposition off track all right
22:10
suppose you're at a bar you're arguing
22:12
politics with a fellow student you can't
22:16
believe it but you seem to be losing the
22:18
debate you keep getting backed into
22:21
corners you find yourself then saying
22:24
things like well it's all a matter of
22:26
opinion
22:27
it's just semantics now what's the
22:31
purpose of saying that in that context
22:33
well it's to get the guy off your back
22:36
right to give yourself some breathing
22:37
space if your opponent accepts that
22:41
everything is a matter of opinion but
22:42
it's all just semantics for example then
22:44
you're seeming to have lost the argument
22:46
doesn't much matter he's just using
22:48
words in a different way than you were
22:50
on the other hand if he doesn't accept
22:52
that everything is just semantics or
22:54
that it's all a matter of opinion then
22:56
he has the rather daunting strategy of
22:58
proving that not everything is a matter
23:00
of semantics and just opinion so as a
23:02
tension that is diverted into doing some
23:04
epistemology and so then he's got a
23:06
really difficult task ahead of him all
23:09
right suppose he takes it on and I don't
23:14
suppose he's taking the semantic
23:16
arguments was he's doing a pretty good
23:17
job on the semantics harkaman well then
23:19
you can just say well what about
23:21
perceptual illusions and then he's often
23:24
running on that one for a while now
23:27
meanwhile what this has done is got
23:30
yourself out of hot water
23:31
got some breathing space and it has
23:33
diverted him from in fact going in for
23:36
the kill on your politics now let's make
23:39
the connection to socialism's current
23:41
state socialism currently is in disarray
23:44
it's feeling beat up on by history and
23:47
its opponents but rather than believe
23:49
that the battle against capitalism is
23:51
really lost you could simply go
23:53
underground do whatever it takes to
23:55
throw the enemy off guard and divert
23:57
them from in effect going in for the
23:58
kill on socialism what if evidence of
24:01
evidence in logic aren't on your side
24:04
then your only weapons are rhetorical
24:07
and political manipulation and in here
24:11
relativist arguments are going to be
24:12
very useful because their cause
24:14
connections in people who are modernist
24:16
who believe that there are such things
24:18
as universal truths and so forth and so
24:21
they then are diverted into the
24:23
epistemology they go off and write long
24:24
books about relativism and why it's
24:26
false and pernicious and so forth but in
24:28
the meantime while they are doing that
24:30
they're not attacking your politics
24:32
they're not defending their own politics
24:34
and so they're leaving the field open
24:36
for you to regroup and come back again
24:38
later
24:40
Fredric Jameson whom I mentioned earlier
24:42
he's a major post modernist literary
24:44
critic or critic who's famous for having
24:46
said I say something funny
24:51
everything is in the last analysis
24:54
political now this strikes me as deeply
24:57
Machiavellian as a statement of a
24:59
willingness to use any weapon rhetorical
25:02
epistemological political to achieve
25:04
one's ends if so a postmodernist doesn't
25:07
have to believe the relativism in order
25:10
to use it as a tactic it works to
25:12
destabilize the opposition and the end
25:14
justifies the means
25:16
relativism then on this interpretation
25:19
is post-modernism big why it's a
25:21
pretense really they believe left
25:24
politics absolutely and they're just
25:26
buying time while they're regrouping now
25:30
here's an example so I didn't just make
25:32
this up Kate Ellis is a radical gender
25:36
feminist LS su rights and stories
25:39
without endings believes that sexism is
25:42
objectively and absolutely evil
25:44
affirmative action is objectively good
25:47
capitalism and sexism go hand in hand
25:50
achieving gender equality requires the
25:52
overthrowing of existing society but she
25:55
has a problem she says when she tries to
25:57
teach her students these themes her
26:01
students think like liberal capitalists
26:04
they think in terms of equality of
26:06
opportunity of judging everyone by the
26:09
same standards of removing the
26:11
artificial barriers that women have
26:13
faced they think that by personal effort
26:16
and ambition
26:16
they can overcome most obstacles and
26:18
achieve success this means to her that
26:22
her students have bought into the whole
26:23
liberal capitalist framework that she
26:26
thinks is dead wrong so Ellis writes she
26:29
will enlist deconstruction as a weapon
26:32
against those old-fashioned
26:34
Enlightenment beliefs if she can first
26:36
undermine their belief in the
26:37
superiority of capitalism of Western
26:40
values the idea that people make or
26:42
break themselves their core values will
26:45
be destabilized pushing relativism she
26:48
finds helps achieve this and once their
26:51
enlightenment beliefs are hollowed out
26:52
by relativistic arguments she can then
26:54
again turn absolutist and fill the void
26:57
with politically correct principles now
27:02
a familiar analogy here may help I'm
27:05
proposing that post modernists are no
27:07
more relativistic than creationists are
27:09
creationist in their battles against
27:12
evolution most modernists wearing their
27:14
post multiculturalist guard will say all
27:16
cultures are equal eagle but they're
27:21
just like creationists who say that all
27:23
they want is equal time for creation and
27:26
evolution creationists will sometimes
27:28
say things like both creationism and
27:30
evolution are equally scientific or they
27:33
will say both are equally based on faith
27:35
do they creationists really think that
27:38
well hell no they're opposed to
27:41
evolution they are convinced that it's
27:43
wrong and that it's evil and if they
27:46
were in power they would suppress it
27:48
however in the short term as a tactic
27:51
since they're on the losing side right
27:52
now
27:53
they will push for intellectual
27:55
egalitarianism and they will argue that
27:58
nobody knows the absolute truth the same
28:00
holds for the post modernists they say
28:02
they want equal respect for all cultures
28:04
but really in the long run what they
28:06
want to do is suppress the Western one
28:10
I think this Machiavellian
28:15
interpretation explains why relativistic
28:18
arguments are arrayed against the
28:19
Western great books Canon if your
28:22
deepest goals are political you always
28:24
have a huge obstacle to confront the
28:27
powerful books written by brilliant
28:29
minds on the other side of the debate
28:31
and there are always lots of them for
28:33
example in literature there's a huge
28:35
body of staggeringly wonderful novels
28:37
plays epic poems and not very much of
28:39
its support socialism a lot of it
28:42
presents very compelling analyses of the
28:44
human condition from apposed
28:46
perspectives in law another place where
28:50
post-modernism is very strong the
28:52
Constitution and the whole body of
28:54
common law precedent provides a very
28:56
powerful obstacle to many socialists
28:59
agendas so if you're a left-wing
29:01
graduate student or a left-wing
29:03
professor in literature or law you've
29:05
got two choices you can take on those
29:08
opposing traditions have your students
29:10
read the great books and then read the
29:12
great decisions and argue with them and
29:14
about them in your classes now that's
29:16
very hard work and it's also risky
29:18
because they might come to believe the
29:20
wrong thing or you can define or trying
29:24
to find a way to dismiss the whole
29:25
tradition so that you can teach the
29:27
books to fit your politics if you're
29:30
looking for shortcuts or if you have a
29:31
sneaking suspicion that your side won't
29:33
fare very well in the debate
29:35
deconstruction is seducing
29:37
deconstruction allows you to dismiss
29:39
whole literary and legal traditions as
29:41
built upon sexist or racist or otherwise
29:44
exploitative assumptions that way you
29:47
can claim justification for setting them
29:49
aside now suppose you're making this
29:51
argument do you really have to believe
29:53
that Shakespeare was a sexist or that
29:56
Hawthorne was a secret Puritan or that
29:58
Melville was a technological imperialist
30:01
no he's make those arguments you rid
30:04
yourself with an obstacle and then you
30:06
don't have to read the challenging books
30:07
you don't have to explore opposing
30:09
perspectives and you don't have to have
30:10
arguments against them all right
30:14
that's the Machiavellian explanation
30:17
post-modernism is not so much a leap of
30:19
faith for the academic left but a
30:22
political strategy
30:23
uses but does not believe relativism at
30:32
one final darker psychological twist to
30:35
add I have not yet accounted for the
30:41
nastiness the obsession with darkness
30:45
and destruction perversion that is
30:50
characteristic of much post modernist
30:52
writing in older socialist writing you
30:55
can often see signs of resentment Envy
30:58
anger exalting in the destruction that
31:01
the socialist revolution will bring how
31:04
those capitalists will finally get
31:05
what's coming to them with
31:08
post-modernism the negative emotional
31:11
ISM is often more extreme the sheer love
31:15
of deconstruction the chronic deployment
31:18
of crude ad hominem argument in my
31:21
reading of the whole history of the
31:23
Western tradition these are
31:24
unprecedented Stanley fish calling all
31:28
opponents of affirmative action bigots
31:31
lumping them in with the Ku Klux Klan
31:34
Andrea Dworkin 'he's male-bashing in the
31:37
form of calling all heterosexual males
31:40
rapists the rhetoric behind it is harsh
31:46
and are laced behind the emotion there
31:49
seems the rhetoric there seems to be
31:51
strongly felt negative emotion racism
31:55
and sexism are obviously the current hot
31:57
issues so we might expect overheated
31:59
language and debating them but the same
32:01
vituperation is leveled against
32:03
historical figures all of those bad dead
32:05
white European males so if you are
32:08
reading deconstructions of great authors
32:11
like Shakespeare you don't find things
32:14
like you know Shakespeare really is
32:16
great and it's kind of sad that I have
32:18
to point out this element of sexism in
32:20
him it's kind of a gleeful dismissing of
32:23
all of Shakespeare because he got these
32:26
sexist elements in them
32:29
so I want to try to capture this
32:31
psychological component as well and I
32:34
find that for me what is most
32:36
illuminating is Nietzsche's concept of
32:39
race on tamal race on tamal in the
32:42
French is close to the English
32:44
resentment but it's got kind of a more
32:48
curdled bitterness that it's more
32:51
seething and poisoned and bottled up for
32:54
a long time
32:55
that's race on tamal we're trying to
32:57
project this psychological state now I
33:01
kind of liked the idea of using
33:02
Nietzsche here in analyzing the post
33:04
modernists because he's one of the
33:06
heroes of post-modernism they cite him
33:10
for his perspective ilysm in
33:12
epistemology his use of the enigmatic
33:14
and loosely structured aphoristic form
33:16
instead of a more scientific treatise
33:18
form his psychological acuteness in
33:21
unmasking various guises which is core
33:24
to the deconstruction methodology i want
33:27
to use nietzsche against post modernist
33:30
for a change
33:31
nietzsche uses the concept of racism all
33:34
in the context of developing his famous
33:35
account of master and slave morality in
33:38
beyond good and evil most famously and
33:40
more systematically in the genealogy of
33:43
morals master morality for Nietzsche is
33:46
the morality of the vigorous life loving
33:49
strong
33:50
it's the morality of those who love
33:52
adventure delight in creativity in their
33:55
own sense of purposefulness and
33:56
assertiveness slave morality is the
34:00
morality of the weak
34:01
the humble those who feel weak they're
34:05
victimized afraid to venture forth into
34:08
the big bad world weaklings are the
34:11
chronically passive largely because they
34:13
are afraid of the strong as a result the
34:16
weak feel frustrated they can't get what
34:19
they want out of life they become
34:21
envious of the strong and they also
34:23
secretly start to hate themselves for
34:26
being so cowardly and weak but no one
34:30
can live thinking that he or she is
34:33
deeply hateful and so the weak invent a
34:37
rationalization a rationalization that
34:39
tells them they
34:40
they are the good and the moral because
34:42
they are weak humble passive patience is
34:48
a virtue so they have to wait a long
34:51
time for ever getting something what
34:52
they want so patience is a virtue
34:55
obedience is a virtue they can't do
34:59
their own will they have to obey so make
35:02
it a virtue humility and so is being on
35:06
the side of the weak and the downtrodden
35:08
people just like you and so of course
35:10
the opposites of those things must be
35:12
the evil aggressiveness pride
35:15
independence being physically and
35:17
materially successful this sound
35:20
familiar
35:20
sure but of course Nietzsche says it's a
35:24
rationalization and a smart weakling is
35:27
never quite going to convince himself of
35:29
it and that will do damage inside
35:32
meanwhile the strong will be laughing at
35:34
him and that will do damage inside when
35:38
the strong and rich will carry on
35:40
getting stronger and richer and enjoying
35:42
life and seeing that will do more damage
35:45
inside eventually the smart weakling
35:47
will feel such a combination of
35:49
self-loathing and envy of his enemies
35:52
that he will need to lash out he will
35:55
feel the urge to hurt in any way he can
35:58
his hated enemy but of course he can't
36:00
risk direct physical confrontation he's
36:03
a weakling his only weapons are words
36:08
now in our time the capitalists are the
36:11
strong the exuberant the active for a
36:15
while in the past century socialists
36:16
could believe that the revolution was
36:17
coming that whoa would come to them that
36:20
are rich and blessed would be the poor
36:22
but that Hope has been dashed cruelly
36:25
capitalism now seems like a case of
36:27
twice two makes four like Dostoyevsky's
36:31
underground man it's easy to see that
36:33
the most intelligent socialists would
36:35
just hate that fact socialism is the
36:38
loser and if the socialists know that
36:41
they will hate that fact that fact they
36:44
will hate the winners for having won and
36:45
they will hate themselves for having
36:47
picked the losing side hate as a chronic
36:50
condition leads to the urge to destroy
36:53
but again your only weapons are words
36:57
how can you use words to destroy I think
37:01
the whole idea of deconstruction comes
37:04
out of this post-modernism is populated
37:08
by large numbers of people who like the
37:09
idea of deconstructing other people's
37:12
work it's opposite of constructing
37:14
something of your own I've considered
37:17
parallel examples from the world of
37:18
visual art I think the visual art world
37:21
was a little ahead of the postmodernist
37:22
this century asked to submit something
37:27
for display at the Art Institute of
37:28
Chicago Marcel Duchamp sends a urinal
37:33
which is then displayed this makes a
37:36
statement about art art is something you
37:38
piss on or there's the painter de
37:42
Kooning's version of the Mona Lisa a
37:44
reproduction he makes a loner Leonard
37:47
Leonardo's masterpiece with a cartoonish
37:50
mustache added that too makes a
37:53
statement here's an achievement
37:54
I can't hope to equal and so I'll turn
37:57
it into a joke I'll destroy it so you
38:00
become a bully and a thug not because it
38:03
destroys something bad but just because
38:05
it feels good to wreck something so
38:08
words are your weapons now and you want
38:10
to destroy the achievements of Western
38:12
civilization especially the
38:13
Enlightenment how do you do it well
38:16
consider a more personal case if you
38:19
hate someone and you want to hurt him
38:21
hit him where it counts do you want to
38:24
hurt a man who loves his children and
38:26
hates child molesters what would be the
38:28
worst thing you could say about such a
38:30
guy well accuse him publicly of child
38:33
molesting or better yet spread sneaky
38:36
rumors that he's a child molester do you
38:39
want to hurt a woman who takes pride in
38:41
her independence spread through the
38:43
Groth gossip grapevine that she married
38:45
the man she did because he's wealthy now
38:49
the truth or the falsity here of the
38:50
rumors doesn't matter and whether you
38:52
believe them yourself
38:53
doesn't matter and whether the people
38:55
you believe them or tell them to really
38:57
believe them doesn't matter they get out
38:59
there and they do their damage what
39:02
matters is that you score a direct hit
39:03
in the psyche of
39:05
or enemy your target person you know
39:08
that the accusations and the rumors are
39:10
going to cause some tremors even if they
39:12
come to nothing and you get that
39:14
wonderfully dark glow inside of knowing
39:16
that you did it right and it might just
39:19
come to something after all now my best
39:22
example of this psychology helps from
39:25
the deadest and whitest of the dead
39:27
white European males it's Shakespeare
39:29
think of Yago and Othello now here I
39:33
think Shakespeare nailed this psychology
39:36
centuries ago long before the
39:38
postmodernist
39:39
what we've got is Yago just hates
39:41
Othello what he couldn't hope to defeat
39:43
him in open confrontation so how best to
39:46
destroy him well hit him where it hurts
39:49
most
39:50
his passion for Desdemona hint that
39:52
she's been sleeping around spread subtle
39:55
lies and innuendo raise a doubt in a
39:59
fellow's mind about the most beautiful
40:00
thing in his life
40:01
and let that doubt work like a slow
40:04
poison I like to you post modernist
40:09
Iago's only words or weapons were words
40:11
the only difference between the post
40:13
modernists and Iago is that the post
40:15
modernists are hardly subtle now let's
40:18
bring it back to then the Western
40:20
tradition the Western tradition it
40:22
prides itself on its commitment to
40:24
equality justice open-mindedness making
40:28
opportunity available to all the West is
40:30
proud full of itself confident and it
40:34
knows that it's the wave of the future
40:35
this is unbearable to someone who is
40:38
totally invested in an opposite and
40:40
failed outlook and so that pride is what
40:44
you want to destroy your best bet then
40:47
do is to attack the West's sense of its
40:50
own moral worth attack it as racist and
40:54
sexist then as inherently dogmatic and
40:56
cruelly exploitative undermine it at the
40:59
court the words don't have to be true in
41:02
order to do their damage and so I don't
41:04
think it's accidental that
41:05
post-modernism has launched the kinds of
41:07
attacks on the core values of the West
41:09
and it's done so knowing full well that
41:12
the accusations it's making are not true
41:15
it's a psychological compulsion in some
41:18
cases and so that allows you to hold the
41:21
contradiction you can be an absolutist
41:23
in your assertions and you couldn't
41:24
assert the relativism and it just
41:26
doesn't matter as long as it's harming
41:28
someone your enemy that's fine that's
41:32
the final explanation or my final
41:35
hypothesis here I call it the knee list
41:38
explanation for obvious reasons like
41:42
some post modernists the worst move in
41:44
many ways are individuals of deep race
41:46
on tamal psychologically and at the
41:49
combination of alienation bitterness
41:51
envy and rage leads them to lashing out
41:54
with an intent to destroy any aspect of
41:56
culture that seems to them to be the
41:58
opposite all right now I was going to
42:01
bring a slide but I forgot so let me
42:04
kind of summarize the whole thing in a
42:07
little flow chart I think it starts here
42:14
we'll use Marx as a name with socialism
42:17
socialism is the deepest part socialism
42:20
goes along until the middle part of the
42:23
20th century and then it reaches a
42:26
crisis in parallel what's going on any
42:32
pistol mala ji starting with Conte is a
42:36
development that leads the middle part
42:38
of the 20th century to some sort of
42:40
relatives and subjectivism the less
42:47
thinkers at this point and funding their
42:49
crisis are looking for a way out and so
42:53
what they do is they integrate this and
42:54
you get a little a ha-ha Mahna Mahna
42:57
let's put these two together and then at
43:02
this point in fact the philosophy is
43:04
done and what you then have is three
43:06
possible routes to explore depending on
43:10
what your psychological preferences are
43:12
going to be the first option is the
43:15
Kierkegaard e'en option
43:19
if you want to maintain your belief in
43:22
socialism as a article of faith against
43:27
all of the evidence this relativism and
43:29
subjectivism will do that for you so
43:31
this will justify the leap of faith for
43:33
you personally continuing to believe in
43:35
the socialism if you need a new strategy
43:39
argumentative rhetorical strategy in
43:41
order to try to continue the battle
43:43
against capitalism then what you will do
43:45
is adopt a Machiavellian strategy this
43:52
means that you will continue to believe
43:55
in your left-wing politics you won't
43:57
necessarily believe the relativism but
43:59
you will employ it as a political tactic
44:01
against capitalism and then finally if
44:07
this crisis is legitimate
44:10
and deeply felt then what you will have
44:12
is just an order to destroy capitalism
44:16
not because you're ultimately thinking
44:17
socialism is going to win not
44:19
necessarily that you personally believe
44:20
it anymore but what you then have is
44:22
just a straight kneel ISM here so that's
44:27
my argument
44:28
I haven't argued today
44:32
that's post-modernism is false or
44:36
yesterday this has mostly been
44:40
intellectual history and I wouldn't
44:44
argue that any of the issues that it
44:46
raises can be set aside the issues of
44:50
skepticism realism versus anti-realism
44:52
the relationship between reason and
44:54
emotion the dimensions of individualism
44:56
and collectivism and human nature all of
44:59
these are ongoing debates in the
45:00
intellectual community and they should
45:02
continue to be so what I think my
45:06
argument shows is that post-modernism
45:09
that collection of ideas is a function
45:12
of left-wing politics post-modernism is
45:15
a rhetorical strategy developed by the
45:17
left's deepest thinkers in response to
45:20
the fell crisis of the old left it's a
45:22
movement that was set by the the agenda
45:25
was set by the deepest thinkers and it's
45:27
being carried out in a variety of
45:28
intellectual fronts literary theory
45:30
education Theory legal theory and so on
45:33
and I think on all of those affronts
45:35
especially the epistemological front and
45:38
the political front the battles have to
45:39
be engaged in all of their various
45:41
dimensions the post modernist philosophy
45:44
is the death knell of everything the
45:46
Enlightenment stands for it took
45:49
centuries of philosophy to overturn
45:51
feudalism and make the Enlightenment
45:53
possible and philosophical battles are
45:56
never over forever and so the
45:57
enlightenment philosophy lafa chol
45:59
tradition needs constant rejuvenation in
46:02
order to maintain its successes it's
46:05
worth pausing here I think to for a
46:07
moment just to consider exactly what's
46:09
at stake what the Enlightenment achieved
46:12
and what post-modernism is rejecting
46:14
here's a list of the Enlightenment
46:16
successes science both in the explosion
46:21
of knowledge and Sciences created and in
46:23
the conceptual idea of there being a
46:26
scientific method that you can apply
46:27
self-consciously
46:29
engineering the systematic creation of
46:31
new technologies medicine from
46:35
anesthetic to antiseptic to invasive
46:38
surgery to antibiotics to x-rays and so
46:41
on and so on
46:43
business the marshalling of capital on a
46:46
large scale the development of financial
46:49
markets the international network of
46:51
businesses the increased number and
46:52
variety of career opportunities if you
46:55
just undergraduates worry about getting
46:57
a job and there's a how many career
47:00
opportunities do you have now compared
47:01
to 600 years ago free markets are an
47:07
Enlightenment product liberal democratic
47:10
government constitutionalism the end of
47:14
slavery the diminishment and almost
47:16
ending of the subordination of women the
47:19
very idea that progress is possible and
47:22
the liberating feeling of optimism that
47:24
comes with believing in progress the
47:27
exponentially rising wealth the major
47:30
increases in the available leisure time
47:32
that we all enjoy a more than doubling
47:35
of average life expectancy
47:37
near-universal literacy the explosion in
47:40
the arts just in the sheer amount of
47:42
painting novel writing poetry writing
47:45
sculpture and music
47:46
it's being created the development of
47:48
new art forms like the movie now I think
47:51
that the philosophy that underlies all
47:53
of that is worth saving but it needs
47:56
constant saving enlightenment philosophy
48:00
was not completed it did not develop a
48:03
satisfactory realistic histology and it
48:07
did not develop an individualistic ethic
48:09
those were the things that left it
48:11
vulnerable those were the things at the
48:13
fundamental level post-modernism attack
48:16
the reason in the individualism the
48:18
themes of post-modernism are not new
48:20
they've always been a minority tradition
48:22
in Western intellectual life Western
48:25
culture in my reading of it is uniquely
48:27
self-conscious and it often has doubts
48:30
and second thoughts about its core
48:32
values and it is rich and strong enough
48:35
to afford intellectuals who articulate
48:38
those doubts many of those thinkers are
48:41
deeply alienated from their cultures
48:43
Rousseau most famously Marx to a large
48:46
extent Nietzsche in some respects and
48:48
with more justification but what's
48:50
different about post-modernism now is
48:52
that it is the dominant academic
48:54
tradition in the humanities and it's in
48:56
a position to do serious damage more
48:58
serious damage so the question then is
49:00
how do we go about defeating it the task
49:05
of professional philosophers is to deal
49:07
with all of post-modernism x' components
49:09
to develop the technical arguments
49:11
needed to respond to post-modernism
49:13
comprehensively from metaphysics and
49:15
epistemology through ethics and
49:17
political theory but there's a division
49:20
of labor here in two ways professional
49:23
philosophy is a very small though
49:25
foundational part of the Academy and so
49:28
there's a huge amount of work that
49:30
philosophically uninformed academics in
49:32
other fields do they pick up the debate
49:35
as it applies to history to law to
49:39
literary criticism to educational theory
49:41
to the practice of science the other
49:44
division of labor is between those
49:46
inside and outside the Academy the
49:49
Academy again is a small very small
49:51
though foundational part of a whole
49:54
culture and there's a huge amount of
49:56
cultural work that is done by informed
49:58
motivated and commit
50:00
individuals outside the Academy a
50:03
culture is maintained by what is decided
50:05
over the dinner table on school boards
50:08
in local state and federal politics on
50:11
museums and art gallery boards in
50:14
debates and newspapers and magazines by
50:17
people who write op-eds columns letters
50:20
to the editors in managers meetings when
50:22
people are high deciding hiring policies
50:25
advertising campaigns where to spend
50:27
philanthropic dollars in the coffee shop
50:30
in the morning the watercooler over
50:31
break in the bars and the restaurants
50:33
and the evenings in an open society the
50:37
debates go on at all levels of culture
50:39
all the time and so for interested
50:42
parties opportunities to confront
50:44
post-modernism and to advance
50:45
enlightenment values are limitless
50:48
but nobody can do it all so we each need
50:51
to pick our targets when I'm in the
50:55
situation of arguing post-modernism I've
50:57
made it a policy to ask myself two
50:59
questions early on in the discussion I
51:02
always seem to picture myself in a bar
51:05
about midnight a fellow graduate
51:08
students arguing over beer I had my
51:11
first my first significant encounters
51:13
with post-modernism in graduate school
51:15
most of graduate school goes on in the
51:18
bars not the library and so I think that
51:21
made a least lasting impression now the
51:24
two questions are when I'm judging my
51:26
interlocutor is first is this person
51:30
honest and second what matters most to
51:35
this person
51:37
the first is important because it's easy
51:40
to waste a lot of time discussing things
51:41
with people who aren't really interested
51:43
in thinking something through they may
51:46
seem to enjoy debate initially but it's
51:48
a game they're not really open to having
51:51
their premises challenged or to think
51:52
through their assumptions the mark of
51:55
this is almost always evasiveness
51:57
switching the subject when hot water is
52:00
sensed and it's just not worth it to
52:02
pursue if your idea is to get to the
52:05
truth here life is short there's an
52:07
exception here especially when you're
52:09
early in your career if you want to
52:10
sharpen your debating skills then go for
52:13
it
52:14
or if you want to just really get a
52:15
concrete image of how evasive people can
52:18
be and learn to spot evasiveness do it
52:20
okay the second question is what matters
52:25
most to this person this question allows
52:28
you to focus most effectively your time
52:31
and that you spend in the debate for an
52:34
example any discussion about
52:36
post-modernism is going to wander from
52:38
politics to historical claims to
52:41
epistemological claims about
52:42
interpretation relativism and
52:44
subjectivism now here's my bold claim
52:47
95% of the time the politics is what
52:50
matters most to your interlocutor so
52:53
focus on that the epistemology and
52:56
whether the Aztecs really perform
52:58
sacrifices those are way secondary their
53:02
window-dressing in my experience if
53:05
you're arguing with post modernists
53:07
especially in English literature law in
53:09
history they didn't come to
53:10
post-modernism bio epistemology they had
53:13
a political agenda and they only later
53:15
backed into relativistic epistemology so
53:19
you're not going to change anyone's mind
53:20
by proving that the senses are valid or
53:23
that Columbus was a nicer guy than
53:24
Montezuma there's a follow-up point here
53:28
about focusing on the politics and here
53:31
I would recommend that you emphasize the
53:33
positive by that I mean focus on the
53:37
case for capitalism and liberalism and
53:39
de-emphasize arguing against socialism
53:42
both of these need to be done but not
53:45
only is it more enjoyable to focus on
53:47
talking about why capitalism is so great
53:50
it's more effective socialists are
53:53
usually well aware of the problems of
53:55
socialism so mentioning them is fine
53:57
just to show them that you know what
53:59
they are but that's not going to make
54:01
the case for capitalism socialism often
54:04
gets most much of its impetus from a
54:06
failure to visualize any alternative in
54:08
part this is driven by traditional
54:10
mischaracterizations of capitalism so
54:13
hammer home the successes of the
54:15
Enlightenment philosophy medicine
54:17
standard of living
54:18
freedom extension of the franchise etc
54:20
there's lots and lots of data available
54:22
and these things can be used to great
54:24
effect in
54:25
debate and hammer home especially the
54:28
individualism that lies beneath the
54:32
liberal capitalistic vision the
54:35
importance of being an end in yourself
54:36
setting your own goals figuring out the
54:39
means prising one's creativity ingenuity
54:41
and responsibility these are all the
54:44
things that capitalism protects and
54:46
nurtures and these are the things that
54:47
get people to earn not much more than a
54:50
dismal listing of socialism's failings
54:54
all right I have emphasized the politics
54:57
and the psychology and de-emphasize the
55:01
epistemology and dealing with
55:03
post-modernism nonetheless the
55:06
epistemology is crucial and the
55:08
technical work in epistemology needs to
55:10
be done and marketed effectively I think
55:13
here objectivism has a unique voice
55:15
without that the philosophical world
55:18
will be chronically subject to
55:19
subjectivism and in a climate of
55:21
subjectivism some future or rationalist
55:24
cultural movement will rise up to take
55:26
advantage of it thank
55:39
thank you
55:42
well I can't tell you how good that
55:44
makes me feel okay I Steve you talked a
55:50
little bit about the what almost appears
55:53
to be the personal characteristics of
55:55
some of the leading post modernists has
55:58
anybody done any systematic analysis of
56:01
them in comparison of these folks to try
56:04
and illustrate more what their defects
56:07
really are as people as human beings you
56:10
know my sense is that that actually may
56:14
be something that could be constructive
56:17
in terms of trying to focus more on on
56:20
these people and their failures their
56:22
failings is a as individuals I mean
56:24
you've touched on it but it seems to me
56:26
that it's it's useful to try and get at
56:30
you know the psychology these people and
56:32
what in effect what's wrong with them
56:34
why do they feel as bitterness this
56:35
alienation what are the the causes of it
56:38
as much as anything else to help other
56:40
people kind of maybe steer away from
56:42
those characteristics right well it's
56:45
obviously a very sensitive subject to
56:47
raise within the Academy when you start
56:51
questioning people's motives you open
56:58
the door to turning everything into a
56:59
dominant debate I mean debate is just
57:01
going to shut down as soon as that
57:03
becomes part of the Academy so people
57:05
will shy away from it in the public
57:09
writings and the public lectures what
57:12
you will get then is an emphasize on
57:13
arguing against the relativism and it's
57:16
not so much that you're trying to refute
57:19
the relative to refute the postmodernist
57:21
to the postmodernist
57:22
your audience is some other group of
57:24
people and you just say this is what
57:26
post-modernism leads to it's ridiculous
57:28
and so don't you believe this as well
57:29
but you're quite right though that
57:31
knowing that it's not just a
57:34
philosophical movement that it's also a
57:35
psychological phenomenon that's going on
57:38
this Canon should be very helpful to
57:41
people in dealing with it with them and
57:43
I don't think there's anything systemic
57:46
that has been done the only thing that
57:48
comes to mind as partly approximating
57:50
that project is a book by Paul Johnson
57:53
called intellectuals came out I'm not
57:56
sure how long ago eight ten years ago
57:57
and what he does is he goes through and
57:59
he takes people like Rousseau and some
58:02
of the 19th century utopian socialism
58:04
socialists and Marx and some of the
58:06
Fabian socialists and Bertrand Russell
58:09
is in there as well and they're all
58:11
pretty much left politics and he does
58:13
show that that matched their personal
58:16
lives and that there was a lot of
58:17
evidence that there was some destructive
58:19
stuff going on in them psychologically
58:21
so I think it would be valuable to be
58:24
done I wonder how you could do it in the
58:26
Academy well yes sure that's work and I
58:31
think that's where it does go on that
58:33
people are a little freer to or in a
58:36
friendly audience like this Steve I
58:41
think your analysis was fantastic so
58:43
thanks for a great job thank you since
58:45
you ended with some debating tips I
58:47
thought I'd take the liberty of givin a
58:49
couple of my own that I think mesh well
58:52
with yours please do I've had much more
58:54
experience than I care to recall with
58:57
debating these two sort of people the
59:00
first is but what about is not the
59:04
beginning of an argument there's no
59:06
argument that begins but what about the
59:08
poor but what about anything well what
59:11
about the environment very careful if
59:14
you want to debate successfully in here
59:16
you'll be very careful that when when
59:18
the balls in their court make sure you
59:20
leave it there right this is a tactic
59:23
that I find them to use all the time but
59:24
what about the poor well but what about
59:27
the poor what am I supposed to say the
59:28
worst thing you can do is to jump on
59:30
that and start giving some random
59:32
flailings about the poor right right
59:35
whatever comes to your mind if they've
59:36
got some concern about the poor make
59:38
them tell you what their concern is
59:39
right that brings also I would if I
59:41
could just add on that point if you
59:43
sense that what the person's strategy is
59:45
they've got a core disagreement with
59:47
capitalism that's not going to be budged
59:48
and there's just a whole bunch of what
59:50
about the pours and there's going to be
59:51
another what about as soon as you finish
59:53
this one right then don't go down that
59:55
rope try to figure out what that core
59:57
thing is and I think that that's sort of
60:02
a corollary of a more basic principle
60:03
when you're arguing with someone about
60:07
convictions that differ tell you should
60:11
tell people what you think and the
60:14
reasons that you think it and they
60:17
should be telling you what they think
60:19
and the reasons that they think it not
60:22
some argument that they once heard that
60:24
they think kind of supports it right not
60:26
an argument that they hope might win but
60:30
you should ask people you think that I
60:32
don't want to hear some abstract
60:34
argument that you once heard why you
60:36
think that might that you think might
60:37
work I want to know why do you think
60:41
this is true so that if I can refute
60:44
that argument you can't any longer think
60:47
that it's true right okay because it's
60:50
amazing how often I find myself I say to
60:52
somebody why do you think that and
60:53
they'll tell me and I say I refute it
60:57
then and they say well how about this
61:00
yeah right and but what about the poor
61:05
it right is okay anyway those are my two
61:07
tips and if you're following up on the
61:09
second one the same spirit as that
61:13
strategy is to get the person pinned
61:15
down to something right so your position
61:17
is this this is your most important
61:19
argument against say capitalism or
61:21
whatever and then say if I can show you
61:23
that that argument doesn't work are you
61:25
going to change your mind they will say
61:29
yes or no and then your options are
61:33
obvious your joy yet Michael oh sorry
61:37
not Michael this is Rick Rick when
61:41
you're doing writing about this sort of
61:42
thing you know the opportunity to have
61:45
people voice their objection and then to
61:46
get back to epistemology and so when you
61:49
write say in defense of capitalism the
61:51
reader might say well that's just an
61:54
opinion or whatever and then you can get
61:56
back into those issues but that never
61:57
comes out in the writing because it's
61:58
not a dialogue so is there any solution
62:00
to that problem could you rephrase once
62:03
again what's the problem okay
62:04
the lack of dialogue well because it
62:06
requires a dialogue to go from the
62:07
politics and then back to the
62:09
epistemology when when you write so you
62:12
write in defensive you're talking about
62:13
some capitalism and you're defending it
62:15
and then
62:16
a well that's just an opinion that's all
62:18
relative and then you can get back to
62:19
the epistemology okay
62:20
but when you write you don't you don't
62:23
it's not like that it's it's you defend
62:25
capitalism and then your article or what
62:28
your paper is done and then there could
62:30
be discussion later but it's not going
62:32
to get to your audience and only the the
62:34
political issue gets to the audience
62:36
right Alyssa rain look at a whole
62:38
treatise or something and then you don't
62:39
get back to the epistemology so is any
62:41
way of addressing everything in the same
62:44
package without being just you know
62:48
while still staying on the same theme
62:50
yes and that's I think that's always the
62:53
challenge of writing I mean that writing
62:55
versus dialogue has the defects that
62:57
you're mentioning it's much slower in
62:59
terms of the feedback I mean the
63:01
dialogue does go on but it goes on at a
63:02
much slower pace now
63:07
how then I think this is just a general
63:09
writing question how do you pick your
63:12
target and then tailor your piece of
63:14
writing so that it effectively reaches
63:16
that target given that you can't do it
63:19
all at a particular time now in my
63:23
presentation here for two example today
63:25
we're all over the map talking about
63:30
just about everything and so the
63:32
trade-off there is necessarily
63:33
everything needs to be done with a much
63:35
broader brush now the trick then is just
63:39
to do it without sacrificing the
63:40
accuracy and that's just the challenge
63:43
of knowing your field if you don't want
63:46
to paint with that brought a brush
63:48
because you know the particularly
63:52
specific objections and you are then
63:55
going to be wanting to deal with those
63:57
objections then you need to paint with a
63:59
narrower brush so you can phrase the
64:01
issues in a way that allows you to deal
64:02
with the objections so that way what
64:05
you're doing is anticipating the kinds
64:07
of criticisms that you want to answer
64:09
and then tailoring your presentation in
64:12
a way that you have like a dialogue
64:14
within yourself so you say here's my
64:16
position now someone might say this and
64:17
here's the answer to that state your
64:22
first bid oh great talk on
64:25
my question is how did the postmodernist
64:28
deal with rummells
64:29
statistics I mean it seems like if
64:31
murder is no big deal to you then the
64:34
Kierkegaard Ian or Machiavellian angle
64:37
is fine and if it does bother you then
64:40
Neil ISM is the the answer or do they
64:44
just take that approach that some people
64:47
like the white supremacist the skin had
64:50
to take into like the Holocaust never
64:52
happened it's just a fraud it's part of
64:55
the you know worldwide I sign this plot
64:59
laughing I don't know of any
65:01
postmodernist responses directly to
65:04
rumble
65:06
but the kinds of responses that we could
65:09
anticipate getting would be first
65:11
technical responses of the kinds I'm
65:14
starting to get rumbles about over lunch
65:17
and stuff well how exactly is he
65:18
defining democracy and what about the
65:20
spanish-american war doesn't that count
65:22
and stuff like that so the social
65:24
scientists of course would have to pick
65:26
apart as methodology and see how good is
65:27
categorizations are but supposing the
65:30
numbers are more of us right to an
65:34
open-minded audience than the kinds of
65:36
rhetorical strategies that post
65:38
modernists are going to come up with
65:39
there is going to be the same kinds of
65:40
ones that socialists have always come up
65:42
with there is going to say well your
65:44
interpretation of the data is a
65:46
capitalistic interpretation of the data
65:48
or they will say the Soviet Union wasn't
65:52
really socialistic so you redefine the
65:55
terms that was not what socialism is
65:57
about so on and maybe they believe that
65:59
maybe they don't in your outline you
66:04
mentioned a prediction that
66:06
post-modernism will not will not survive
66:08
another generation thank you
66:10
could you elaborate and explain that
66:11
please because I cut that for time I
66:15
yeah I would have four reasons why I
66:19
think post-modernism won't succeed it
66:21
won't last for very long and the first
66:23
the deepest one is that it doesn't have
66:25
anything to say
66:29
okay I mean that well yeah I mean that
66:34
and all the way sir
66:35
I mean it's it we could say that a very
66:38
abstract philosophical oh it's false so
66:39
ultimately it's not going to be useful
66:41
as a framework for understanding the
66:43
world or us and so forth but also the
66:46
post modernists themselves are saying
66:47
they don't really have anything to say
66:48
about the world and so ultimately then
66:51
what you're going to have is kind of an
66:52
inbred movement where people start
66:55
you're saying the same old formulaic
66:56
stuff over and over again alright and
66:59
there was will Wilkerson sent me this
67:01
website that has this post modernist
67:03
generator you can just take all of the
67:06
stock phrases and it will just
67:08
arbitrarily put them together at random
67:11
but abiding by the rules of grammar and
67:15
so you have a real post modernist book
67:17
the generator version and now that's a
67:20
sign that there's a problem
67:26
all right now I think that means it will
67:29
become an inbred group which means that
67:31
bright decent students who are coming in
67:33
to get an education well so these people
67:34
don't have anything to say I mean I
67:37
think the psychologically disturbed
67:38
people will hang around because it's
67:40
going to push their buttons in the right
67:41
way but the healthy people will go off
67:45
and do various other things second I
67:47
think social because of post-modernism
67:49
emphasis on everything being ad hominem
67:52
it's going to be a socially destructive
67:54
move I don't think it can retain its
67:57
cohesiveness and what you will then have
67:58
is fashion okay and anybody who hurts my
68:02
feelings within my group will then be
68:04
lashed out against by me there are lots
68:07
of examples of this happening right now
68:08
I mean there was a fairly healthy debate
68:10
about heidegger's Nazism and how deeply
68:13
that influenced or was influenced by his
68:16
deeper philosophical convictions right
68:18
this is a problem because Nazi ISM has
68:20
had some bad press but and you know many
68:25
deconstructionist will say that they are
68:26
socialists and so the opposite of what
68:28
the Nazis are but nonetheless here is
68:29
their main guy and he is there and so
68:32
even after the evidence came out it was
68:35
fairly compelling about Heidegger's
68:36
Nazism some people within the
68:38
postmodernist movement and started
68:40
saying well okay maybe we need to
68:41
distance ourselves a little from
68:42
Heidegger now the main disciples of
68:45
Heidegger Derrida then mainly went loopy
68:48
and crazy insane attacking the various
68:52
people who were not toeing the line
68:54
Heidegger can't be a bad guy and if you
68:57
are going to raise publicly dissent then
69:00
we're going to in effect excommunicate
69:02
you and the kinds of I to per a shoe
69:04
that went on it just well maybe you do
69:08
have some sense about that
69:25
third my third reason was that usually
69:30
slowly and reluctantly you get some
69:33
fairly healthy counter-reaction
69:36
what usually go on goes on to literary
69:38
criticism or in the sciences is you've
69:40
got people working out the modernist
69:42
agenda they're doing good literary
69:43
criticism they're doing good history
69:45
they're doing good science then
69:46
post-modernism grows and becomes enough
69:49
of a nuisance that the good people say
69:52
okay I need to take some time off my
69:54
work in order to attack the
69:57
deconstructionist in post modernists and
69:59
so what you then get is some good works
70:02
that are written and show just what the
70:04
problems are with post-modernism and
70:07
deconstruction isn't and so on and those
70:09
serve as a way to keep that sector
70:11
healthy and there are a number of good
70:13
works that have been written in the last
70:15
five years and there somebody would
70:17
recommend also finally I mean
70:21
post-modernism is in effect empty is
70:24
tying in with my first point if you take
70:26
all of the claims that they make that
70:29
are usually put in a third person
70:30
perspective and put them in the
70:31
first-person perspective you can see
70:33
that there's a huge vacuum here I mean
70:35
they would say nobody knows anything
70:38
about reality put that in the first
70:40
person I don't have a clue emotion
70:48
Trump's reason I'm just going by my
70:51
feelings um ad hominem political tactics
70:57
are justified I'm gonna do anything I
70:59
can
71:00
fair or foul to get you that is just
71:06
empty okay and what that means is going
71:09
to leave a huge vacuum for someone to
71:11
come along and fill and I think this is
71:13
why in a way it's bad that
71:16
post-modernism dominates in the
71:18
humanities but in a way it's good
71:19
because this is a real opportunity for
71:22
objectivism to get in there and fill
71:24
that vacuum
71:25
so that's why I don't think it'll last
71:26
for those four reasons it seems that one
71:33
of the ways that ideas like
71:35
post-modernism get out into popular
71:37
mainstream is through art and popular
71:40
culture and that sort of thing can you
71:42
comment on ways that post-modernism is
71:44
seen and popular movies books that sort
71:47
of thing
71:47
and is it is it present there are we
71:49
seeing it are people picking up on these
71:52
ideas or subconsciously through the
71:54
movies that they see and popular culture
71:56
in general well here I'm getting out of
72:02
my my depth because I'm I don't
72:04
necessarily keep up enough with the
72:06
current trends in all these popular
72:08
cultural manifestations I still think
72:12
there is a fairly strong division in the
72:14
arts and cultural movements between high
72:17
culture which is fairly nihilistic and
72:19
popular culture which is pretty healthy
72:22
so pretty modernistic and so if you look
72:24
at say architecture you can find
72:28
modernist stuff going on and you can
72:30
also find post modernist stuff going on
72:32
like that new Guggenheim Museum in
72:35
Bilbao Spain right as clearly post
72:39
modernist so it's just chaos and
72:40
intentionally chaos in literature
72:46
you've got deconstruction works or post
72:49
modernist works of literature and they
72:51
are read by other people in the Academy
72:53
but outside the Academy you've got the
72:55
booming popular culture and I think the
72:57
same thing goes on now is are there
73:00
strains of post-modernism running
73:01
through popular culture well yeah of
73:03
course and I'm sure if we look around we
73:05
can always find a few but I don't think
73:06
they're dominant in popular culture I
73:08
think a popular culture is still by and
73:11
large modernist it's it's still good I
73:13
think science is still by and large
73:14
modernist business is anything in the
73:17
technical field those are all pretty
73:18
healthy
73:22
Thank You Steven okay thank you
73:34
you

Postmodernism Part 2

Attachments