Postmodern Monsters
56.2K subscribers
JOIN
SUBSCRIBE
Podcast version (remastered audio!): http://bit.ly/2PCbA4eDr. Stephen Hicks is a professor and lecturer who has been speaking about the origins and outcomes of Postmodernism for over 20 years. In this discussion, provided by the the new media platform thinkspot, we explore the Evergreen Protests in the light of intellectual trends dating from the Enlightenment. Follow him on twitter @SRCHicks And me @BenjaminABoyce tip jar: https://www.paypal.me/benjaminboyce
00:00
hello this is benjamin boyce and welcome
00:02
to another episode of the voice of
00:04
reason podcast
00:06
today's guest is brought to you by the
00:08
fine folks at think spot who hooked me
00:10
up with the illustrious dr. Steven hex
00:14
dr. Steven Hicks is a professor at
00:16
Rockford University in Illinois he's
00:19
also a lecturer a content creator and an
00:21
author who's been speaking about
00:23
post-modernism for 20 years now in this
00:26
discussion we use my documentary work on
00:28
the Evergreen State College as a
00:30
springboard to explore how
00:32
post-modernism is supposed to be applied
00:34
in the world and an inter human
00:37
interaction and within institutions of
00:40
higher learning and so on and so forth
00:42
what else can I say except for that you
00:45
guys are in for a real treat
00:46
with this one here's dr. Steven hex it's
00:49
a total honor to I get to speak with you
00:52
I've been aware of your work for a
00:54
number of years now one of the things
00:56
that I most appreciate but about your
00:58
work is how accessible it is and you
01:00
actually make this intellectual milieu
01:03
really actually fun to engage with by
01:05
breaking it down into units that are
01:07
easy to to grasp and then with that
01:10
comes the ability to to navigate through
01:13
this landscape great oh good I
01:16
appreciate the feedback I spent some
01:20
time looking at the documentary you've
01:21
been working on and that's also some
01:24
very good work said frightening at the
01:29
same time the application of theory one
01:34
thing to read these guys in the abstract
01:36
and then project what it would be like
01:38
in reality and then you actually see the
01:40
experiment being run do you think that
01:44
that that what happened at Evergreen is
01:47
pretty much a direct application of
01:50
postmodern theory oh yes absolutely
01:54
yeah there's no no unclarity about that
01:58
all of the elements are are there that
02:00
you're not interested in engaging with
02:03
other people as rational beings so
02:07
you've given up on entirely on the idea
02:09
that there's argument and evidence and
02:11
so forth
02:13
you don't see people as individuals you
02:16
see them as avatars or representatives
02:19
of a group you know totally
02:21
collectivized understanding of what it
02:24
is to be a human being
02:25
you see those different collective
02:28
groups as in adversarial relationships
02:32
with each other and the only way than
02:35
those adversarial relationships can be
02:37
resolved if you're not going to do it
02:39
rationally and civilly treating
02:42
individuals as individuals is going to
02:44
be through group power struggles and a
02:48
battle for dominance and that's very
02:50
clearly what one sees at at Evergreen
02:54
you know the young student activists
02:56
have been you know paying very careful
02:58
attention in their classes learning from
03:00
their professors they're good students
03:01
in that regard and now they our
03:06
universities are training ground for
03:08
young scientists and artists and
03:11
humanists of various sorts and so here
03:14
we see the training ground for activists
03:17
of a certain sort and they're flexing
03:20
their muscles and seeing how much they
03:22
can get away with is there any other way
03:26
that postmodern theory can be acted out
03:28
in the real world was evergreen did they
03:32
misinterpret what they were handed well
03:35
yeah I think there are a number of sub
03:38
strands of postmodern theory I mean you
03:41
know a high level of abstraction when is
03:44
skeptical one is relativized
03:47
one tends to collectivise human beings
03:52
rather than seeing them as individuals
03:55
you or one has a rather than a
03:59
harmonious rights respecting expectation
04:02
of civil society sorting its issues out
04:05
peacefully you do decide ease somehow
04:08
things are a cynical jaded battleground
04:12
now at a high level of abstraction those
04:15
don't necessarily predict a particular
04:18
political outcome so one can be cynical
04:22
and jaded and skeptical about all sorts
04:25
of things
04:26
and ones attitude can be to to give up
04:28
and to say well it's all pointless
04:31
there's no genuine value or truth to be
04:33
sought in the world and it's an ugly of
04:35
the replace so I'm just going to
04:37
withdraw and engage in quietism and
04:41
defeatist and I think a lot of people
04:43
who are schooled in post-modernism they
04:45
they go in that direction
04:47
another possibility of course is to say
04:49
you know if there are no truths no
04:53
values that are better than others and
04:56
no cultures or civilizations that are
04:59
better than others then the implication
05:01
of that should be a kind of radical
05:05
equalitarian ism where you then just say
05:09
everybody's narratives are equally
05:11
legitimate all groups are equal and so
05:14
that can foster a kind of toleration ISM
05:17
or we just have a live and let live you
05:20
do your thing I'm going to do my thing
05:22
as well and that also can come out of
05:25
strong post-modernism but this one is is
05:31
another strain where you say if there
05:34
are no true values and we just have
05:37
collectivized understandings of the way
05:39
the world works but at the same time I
05:42
feel some desire to assert my values in
05:46
the world I'm not going to be a quietest
05:48
I'm not going to just be a live and let
05:50
live person I want to see my my agenda
05:53
realized then one will become a kind of
05:56
a power activist and so on so I think
05:58
there are multiple strands of
06:01
post-modernism one thing that I was
06:05
wondering your thoughts about given your
06:08
your your theoretical work on on the the
06:12
procession of post-modernism through
06:14
various different enlightenment
06:17
encounter enlightenment discussions when
06:20
it gets to the era that we're in now
06:22
where we have a lot of people being
06:24
trained in these various Gender Studies
06:27
racial studies all these different
06:29
Studies groups that seem to be founded
06:31
on conflict theory or on reversing a
06:34
hierarchy or understanding everything as
06:36
a relationship of power so all these
06:38
people are being trained
06:39
in this thought process and then they're
06:41
going out in the workforce and it seems
06:44
like the only viable work that they can
06:46
do is to insert themselves into HR
06:50
departments or into activist enclaves
06:54
within bigger corporate or educational
06:56
structures so I guess your question is
07:00
is is post-modernism adaptive to
07:04
bureaucracy is that one of its
07:06
applications
07:09
well yes lots of people who maybe in
07:14
their heart of hearts they want to be
07:15
activists and out on the street and and
07:18
so forth and wearing the black uniform
07:20
black on black but at the same time they
07:23
there are pragmatic enough to realize
07:27
they want to make a living right of some
07:29
sort and so if they have a university
07:31
degree there's a natural pipeline for
07:33
them to go into work and then they will
07:35
cast around as you say and see where
07:37
their skillset best fits and certainly
07:40
HR departments is is one Department is
07:43
there you are in a position to choose
07:45
who comes in and who doesn't shape the
07:48
hiring and promotion policies and that's
07:51
the position of some power but it
07:53
doesn't necessarily require you to have
07:56
management skills or marketing skills or
07:59
leadership skills so yeah that's a
08:02
possible route as well another way is if
08:06
you are more of a subversive who you
08:10
like the idea of being a revolutionary
08:13
who doesn't fight so you know street
08:16
fights in a physical istic form but you
08:19
like the idea of working within and
08:21
subverting institutions that you think
08:23
are corrupt then often from the SJW
08:27
perspective you know corporations are
08:29
the big bad bete noire the the the Great
08:32
Satan of American life so there's a
08:36
charge to in effect being a double agent
08:38
right so you go in and your goal is to
08:41
subvert the institution's from inside so
08:44
that's another possibility this is there
08:48
any other way that this once you adopt
08:51
this ideology what kind of
08:53
you can you create in society or is that
08:55
only from your perspective is it only
08:57
about changing other people's values or
09:00
controlling other how other people
09:03
behave can you create any positive value
09:05
in the world yeah yeah well in a high
09:09
level of abstraction post-modernism is
09:13
ultimately negative its critique all the
09:17
way downs the critique of knowledge
09:18
critique of any set of metaphysics or
09:22
scientific understanding of reality a
09:25
critique of the notion of you know that
09:27
technology is improving the world or
09:30
that markets and democracy are viable
09:33
positive projects but I don't think any
09:38
post modernist is ever in if his or her
09:42
individual life going to be completely
09:44
nihilistic typically people particularly
09:47
Americans though the one the North
09:49
Americans and so forth they start off as
09:53
particularly you know decent young
09:55
people and they have imbibe at normal
09:58
North American values and so by the time
10:01
they go to university they that they
10:03
genuinely are for the most part decent
10:06
people and they're concerned about all
10:08
the things that these people are
10:09
concerned with and pollution and the
10:11
legacy of racism and sexism and why we
10:14
can't get along but then all of those
10:17
issues can be dealt with healthily but
10:20
if you get a poisoned intellectual
10:23
framework to understand those then your
10:25
your positive values get turned against
10:28
you but they don't necessarily all go
10:31
away so you know might start off as an
10:33
ordinary decent person who thinks racism
10:36
is still a problem to some extent but
10:39
you don't have any conceptual tools
10:41
other than the social justice warrior or
10:44
the postmodern way of dealing with them
10:47
and so then you come down here jaded
10:49
view of it so what you will then have is
10:52
you know a person who is is conflicted
10:54
at some level they really are
10:57
anti-racist but they end up using very
11:01
jaded and proto racist or reverse racist
11:04
tactics in trying to solve the problem
11:07
so yeah so I think in some cases it's a
11:15
fig leaf I think some cases like some of
11:17
the students who see in your documentary
11:20
at at at Evergreen you know they are
11:24
just naked racists and power-play people
11:29
interested in dominating and trying to
11:31
humiliate and control Crowe the
11:33
institution and I think for them at
11:36
their level of development the anti
11:38
racism racism is a is a fig leaf it's a
11:41
it's a cover they can say you know I'm
11:44
against racism and they know that that's
11:47
going to mean people will give them the
11:49
benefit of the doubt cut them some slack
11:51
give them a moral sanction because
11:54
everybody is basically anti-racist at
11:57
this point but then you can use that
11:59
benevolence and that tolerance against
12:01
your target and I think that's a
12:03
calculated strategy but I think if you
12:06
were to talk with the average say
12:08
freshman student at Evergreen or some
12:11
such other place that person probably is
12:15
is more mixed I have some genuine anti
12:17
racism anti-sexism they're still decent
12:20
human beings but they are in the process
12:22
of being transformed or their their
12:24
intellectual understanding is in
12:26
conflict with their at that point
12:29
acquire legitimate anti racism and how
12:33
do you think in studying this you've
12:35
been looking at this you've been
12:36
speaking about this for 20 years now I
12:38
think right was the first talk that I
12:40
stopped yeah 1998 what are the steps
12:43
that start to erode those as you call
12:46
them the positive North American values
12:48
into that jaded what are some of the
12:51
like the psychological phase states
12:55
about oh yes right well I think kind of
13:00
first generation post-modernism as I
13:01
think of it is you know if you're
13:03
thinking of individuals you know such as
13:06
Foucault and Derrida and Rorty and the
13:09
others they're all extraordinarily
13:11
well-educated people is at that point
13:13
they're in on Maya they are genuine
13:15
intellectual minorities they're well
13:17
schooled in the majority traditions so
13:20
they know they are
13:21
it's inside and out and they they
13:23
recognized the weaknesses in those
13:25
traditions and they're very good at
13:26
teasing out the implications of those as
13:30
well so you start off with then people
13:32
who know both sides of the debate very
13:35
well and they end up being on on the
13:38
other side of the debate but then as
13:41
those first generation postmoderns are
13:43
training the next generation of students
13:45
particularly graduate students who are
13:47
going to become professors if your
13:51
official conclusions are there is no
13:54
truth reason is not competent for coming
13:57
to know reality different groups have
14:01
their own value struggles and there's no
14:04
logical or rhetorical way to bridge the
14:06
gulf then what that is going to mean in
14:09
the second generation is those graduate
14:12
students who are going to become
14:13
professors are going to say things like
14:15
well it's not really worth my time to
14:19
try to understand the other side's
14:21
arguments I'm not going to be able to do
14:24
that and I'm not going to expect them to
14:27
try to understand my argument so at that
14:30
point then you say we're not going to do
14:33
the argument thing anymore we're also
14:37
not going to say that we should treat
14:39
each other civil that is to say that we
14:42
should respect each other's differences
14:44
of opinions right about debate because
14:47
if civility means that we have a shared
14:50
underlying concept of how we should
14:52
conduct ourselves in society but what
14:55
I've learned from the first generation
14:57
is that there is no such thing there are
14:59
no universal values and so I've just got
15:03
my values you just have your values so
15:06
that then means discussion is going to
15:08
break down I think for a while what's
15:10
going to happen then is they will say
15:13
what we should then just do is going to
15:15
study or make equal time for all of the
15:18
different perspectives in the in the in
15:21
the curriculum so you know we'll have
15:23
one group and we'll do our thing maybe
15:25
we are feminists of a certain fire or
15:27
we're african-american a theorist of a
15:31
certain sort and each group will do its
15:33
own thing and then
15:34
we'll just be arguing for a roughly
15:36
equal place in the curriculum but each
15:40
aspect or the people in the curriculum
15:42
they're just doing their own thing and
15:44
they're not trying to communicate with
15:45
each other then I think the third thing
15:47
the third stage this is where we are now
15:50
is once each of those enclaves right
15:53
within the academic world has its own
15:56
power base and is then trained another
15:59
generation of students then it becomes a
16:01
power struggle within the university you
16:04
want to have hegemony you want to grow
16:06
your department your program but
16:08
typically that means squeezing out the
16:10
other programs and so you'll have kind
16:13
of the nasty zero-sum power-play
16:15
politicking that's that's going on so
16:18
you know then you know so what you see
16:21
at you Evergreen in 2017 then really is
16:25
that that third generation it's not in
16:28
the first generation where you you know
16:30
mythically reconstructing here you would
16:33
have had early evergreen professors
16:35
saying you know there is a strong
16:38
tradition or set of traditions that
16:40
believe in truth and goodness and
16:41
reality and liberty and equality and
16:43
they have these arguments against each
16:44
other and we think that's all ultimately
16:47
crap but we understand that tradition
16:49
and here are our arguments against that
16:52
then you have a second generation of
16:53
evergreen professors who will say let's
16:55
stop talking to each other let's just
16:58
make sure that all of these different
16:59
groups have their own niches on campus
17:02
and their own programs right and so
17:04
forth and then the third generation is
17:06
going to be some of those programs will
17:08
start to assert themselves and try to
17:10
squeeze out the others well what's the
17:13
fourth generation is it the dissolution
17:17
of the Academy as the Academy is it like
17:19
it turns into a variety of different
17:21
academies and these things get along at
17:23
this stage going for no no there's not
17:25
going to be a getting along right so
17:27
smaller more vulnerable institutions
17:30
like the Evergreen you know there will
17:35
be market feedback at some level you
17:36
know so it'll be harder for them to
17:39
attract students harder for them to
17:40
attract donors harder for them to
17:42
attract first-rate faculty who want to
17:44
come and teach there
17:46
and so it's institutions that go too far
17:49
down that road we'll just go into a self
17:51
destroying death spiral and we'll go go
17:54
out of existence unless they have some
17:56
huge endowment that they can coast on
17:58
for for a long time and then the action
18:00
will just gravitate to to some other
18:02
some other place but no I I think the
18:07
the next step is going to be that other
18:10
groups will then start to backlash and
18:13
use the same tactics against the the
18:16
current generation of social justice
18:17
warriors so if you then start to see so
18:21
certain sorts of feminism for example
18:24
start to manifest themselves in very
18:26
ugly adversarial power play forms then
18:30
there's going to be a subsection of
18:32
males who will then say okay well we'll
18:36
just do the exact same thing back and so
18:38
it'll just be a right warfare or if you
18:41
know a certain you know members of
18:43
racial groups you know they want to up
18:44
the things and turn it into racial war
18:47
then the nice tolerant members on the
18:51
other side and the other racial groups
18:53
will say enough is enough
18:54
and they'll just organize themselves
18:56
racially it will be back to the
18:58
old-fashioned race wars again so you'll
19:00
end up with a balkanization if I can use
19:04
that metaphor right or just tribalism as
19:07
a little more generalized and it'll just
19:10
be it'll just be just fought out at that
19:13
point you can't predict you know if it's
19:15
a race war but which race is going to
19:17
win if it's a sex and gender war right
19:19
or if it's an ethnic war well I don't
19:22
we've been having ethnic wars for for
19:25
four generations and we know how that
19:26
history goes it's not predictable well
19:29
what do you think about an educational
19:31
institutions such as Yale where they had
19:34
a dust-up and with Christakis and I
19:38
think it's 2015 yes we're 2016 it was a
19:41
couple years earlier yeah and they seem
19:45
to be big enough to I guess incorporate
19:48
that way of thinking or ameliorate that
19:50
crowd and still carry on but it seems
19:54
like the problem I have with social
19:56
justice is that it likes to capture
19:58
everything it'll capture all the
20:00
schools it'll capture all the sciences
20:02
and in insert its ideology or because
20:06
the people who were trying to learn how
20:07
to be a doctor to spend a lot of time on
20:10
this other secondary material that they
20:13
believe is primary is there any way to
20:15
stop it or counter it yeah no I think
20:18
that's that's perceptive in two ways the
20:20
points you're making one is now for all
20:23
of postmodernism x' rhetoric about being
20:27
anti universalistic and anti dominance
20:29
and anti imperialistic colonial in
20:32
practice they are extraordinarily
20:35
imperialistic and universalistic it's
20:38
it's a total power agenda there that
20:40
they're going for and you're right Yale
20:43
is different than in a case like
20:45
evergreen Yale has huge institutional
20:48
resources and reserves so it could in
20:51
principle you know there's as Adam Smith
20:54
said about economies as a there's a
20:57
great deal of ruination possible in a in
20:59
a country that's had deep reserves so it
21:03
can tolerate a certain number of
21:05
self-destructive experiments and so on
21:08
and to some extent we do expect
21:10
universities to be hothouses and
21:12
laboratories for all kinds of wacky
21:15
experiments and so a place like Yale it
21:18
might even want to encourage but then
21:19
the question is going to be what will
21:21
yell and the rest of us who are watching
21:23
Yale going to learn right from the
21:25
lesson and I think one of the things
21:27
that will happen at an institution like
21:29
Yale is that this will be I don't know
21:32
it's not a tempest in a teacup I don't
21:36
know how much to belittle it but TL has
21:40
an extraordinary number of first-rate
21:42
intellectuals who are doing really good
21:46
work in all sorts of disciplines and one
21:48
of the reasons why the the crazies and
21:52
the activists and the people who are not
21:54
really there for education knowledge
21:56
truth goodness and so forth
21:58
can get some traction at Yale is that
22:02
the first-rate people are focusing on
22:04
their work or trying to get stuff
22:05
actually done they're not taking the the
22:08
postmoderns and the social justice
22:09
warriors that seriously but then to the
22:12
extent that the social
22:13
warriors I really don't like calling
22:16
them social justice warriors because
22:18
they're they're really antisocial and
22:21
just and they are anti justice they are
22:25
warriors
22:29
yes we actually are the justice warriors
22:32
we got with their attacker that was we
22:38
actually care about truth and facts and
22:39
treating individual case but the point
22:41
is at certain point the first-rate
22:43
people at Yale and the other
22:45
institutions Eric this is enough of a
22:46
problem this is crap this is interfering
22:49
with my ability to do my work my ability
22:52
to train students and so forth and so
22:55
they will redirect some of their efforts
22:57
and as soon as you have the first-rate
22:58
Minds taking on what really are
23:01
third-rate activist Minds it's kind of
23:06
clear to me who will win at Yale
23:09
yato wants to be a world-class
23:11
institution and I can't see the current
23:16
generation of professors the
23:18
administration even the students who are
23:21
there who genuinely want to do something
23:23
with their lives the donors and so forth
23:25
and putting up with it for too long now
23:27
maybe that's too optimistic but that's
23:30
my sense do you think that the pursuit
23:33
or the possession of excellence whether
23:37
of ability or character is one aspect
23:40
that causes somebody to be immune to the
23:43
siren call of what we're calling social
23:46
justice yeah that's interesting
23:50
interesting questions in philosophy is
23:53
whether one thinks about the issues
23:57
rationally and considers arguments and
23:59
evidence counter arguments and then
24:02
makes up one's mind and depending on
24:04
where one's reason leads one psychology
24:08
your emotions and your habits of thought
24:10
and speech and action follow that from
24:12
that or whether it's the other way
24:14
around that we start off with a
24:16
psychology that is somewhat perhaps
24:20
implicit and when we're attracted to
24:23
philosophical positions about values and
24:25
knowledge and truth
24:27
that support our psychology so
24:30
psychology is the driver and philosophy
24:33
ends up being an autobiography of one's
24:37
psychology and that's an ongoing back
24:40
and forth to begin in history of
24:42
philosophy now my view is that both
24:45
paths are possible I mean I think in
24:47
many cases it's clear that people come
24:50
in with a psychology and that lends them
24:54
to to pay attention only to things that
24:59
push the buttons that they they already
25:01
like to have pushed and things to take
25:04
them outside of their comfort zone
25:06
they have blocks in places and they keep
25:08
their blocks up so they don't have to
25:10
consider those things so I think there
25:12
are a lot of people who do come in who
25:14
are already disturbed psychologically
25:17
maybe they have a grievance against
25:20
against society against reality they
25:23
that they already don't have much
25:26
self-esteem and they don't think they
25:29
kind of have a sneaking suspicion that
25:30
they're not going to make much of their
25:31
own lives but they still need to assert
25:34
themselves in some way so there's some
25:36
dark psychological territory coming
25:38
along and that person I think is a prime
25:40
candidate for certain kinds of
25:42
ideologies post-modernism is not the
25:44
only one but there is that that Road and
25:47
that's a natural recruiting route but I
25:50
do think it can go the other way that
25:51
you can start with people who are
25:52
basically decent who are open to the
25:54
evidence open to argument who have a
25:57
more benevolent understanding of
25:59
themselves and humans but they take
26:02
seriously the arguments and they buy
26:04
into skeptical jaded cynical
26:07
understandings of the world they really
26:09
think that those are are true and over
26:13
time that shapes their thinking that
26:15
shapes their emotion and then they can
26:17
become poisoned individual so it can go
26:20
both ways were you at some point in your
26:24
own development and maybe college or
26:27
undergrad were you did you play around
26:30
with that skeptical jaded censor was it
26:34
always distasteful for you or how did
26:35
you decide on which path you wanted to
26:38
go
26:38
right now I remember yeah I think in
26:43
some ways I was was you're asking me to
26:46
reconstruct the teenage Stephen Hicks
26:50
where was I on all of these issues I
26:52
think I was mixed but basically
26:56
intelligent open-minded positive values
27:00
are possible person at the same time I
27:03
wasn't you know an idiot and a poly
27:05
honest I was you know well aware of all
27:08
of the hypocrisy xand power plays and
27:11
you know I went through high school just
27:13
like everybody else so I you you get a
27:15
good education and the social types that
27:17
are possible and even though I didn't
27:20
typically read what my teachers assigned
27:22
in high school I was always reading
27:26
history and literature and politics and
27:29
so on so I was aware of the dark side
27:32
and and the brutality and and all of the
27:36
possibilities for a cynical and jaded
27:37
like view of life and I think that was
27:40
where I was when I started University
27:43
and I got a very good liberal arts
27:46
education at the University of Guelph
27:50
partly because they had genuine
27:53
diversity of thought in a lot of the
27:56
departments I studied in political
27:58
science in history especially in
28:01
philosophy when an anecdote I like to
28:04
tell was that my philosophy department
28:08
at the University of wealth expanded
28:11
dramatically in the 1960s and 70s during
28:14
the baby boomer generation and the
28:17
chairman of the department at that time
28:19
was a guy in John Bruce who was a
28:22
skeptic and he basically was given a
28:26
charge by the president of the
28:28
university to go out and hire something
28:30
like twelve or fourteen philosophers to
28:33
build up the department but because he
28:35
was a skeptic his attitude was yeah I
28:37
said well I don't really have a an axe
28:41
to grind here and so he went to the
28:43
Canadian philosophical Association and
28:45
the American Philosophical Association
28:46
meetings with a shopping list and he
28:49
said okay I need a I need a Nietzschean
28:52
I need a puppy rien I need a Marxist I
28:54
need a conte in I need a tow mist and so
28:57
he basically hired people from all over
29:00
the intellectual spectrum so this is
29:03
coming back to answering your questions
29:04
that meant that by the time I got there
29:07
basically there were 20 philosophy
29:10
professors and they all disagreed with
29:11
each other
29:12
fundamentally because they were all
29:14
coming from dramatically different parts
29:16
of the spectrum and I took courses with
29:18
all of them and what that then meant was
29:21
you know that those professors who were
29:23
very strong skeptics very strong
29:26
relativists very strong adversarial
29:29
ist's Marxists and so on and proto
29:33
postmodernists at this point you know I
29:37
engaged with them at a at a first-rate
29:39
level and it did have an effect on me so
29:42
I remember having you know weeks where I
29:44
would be following a line of argument
29:46
and it seemed like it was leading to a
29:48
very dark place and if I was going to be
29:52
intellectually honest I had to go there
29:54
and in some cases it was leading to very
29:58
jaded places and this means that I was
30:00
going to have to look at you know
30:02
perhaps my current friends quite
30:04
differently my parents and and so forth
30:06
so so there was there was an engagement
30:11
there and you know by the way I remember
30:14
siding when I became a philosophy major
30:17
was to say look the facts are facts and
30:20
the only way to sort this out is going
30:22
to be by following the best arguments
30:24
and and weighing them and I will just go
30:28
wherever those go so that's the path I
30:30
that's I pursued even if it landed you
30:34
and hell you're gone yes
30:37
yeah that's wrong that's right so in
30:39
that sense there was a a methodological
30:43
primacy we have to follow the facts have
30:46
to be true to reality however ugly
30:50
reality turns out to be if that turns
30:53
out to be the true picture that I have
30:55
to deal with human beings as they are
30:58
even if my best understanding of human
31:00
beings ends up being negative so a
31:02
willingness to go there was there now
31:06
I ended up not coming to think that
31:08
those are the true or best
31:10
understandings of reality knowledge in
31:12
the human condition but I think if
31:15
you're going to really be a philosopher
31:16
or any sort of intellectual genuinely
31:18
you do have to be open to that what
31:23
landed you with a smile then rather than
31:25
a friend at the end yeah yeah well any
31:34
would just be a matter of you know
31:36
reading the people who are advocates of
31:40
science the realism and perception that
31:46
concept formation is a legitimate
31:47
process that logic actually works
31:49
putting those arguments up against the
31:51
this best skeptical arguments and the
31:54
the positive accounts right prevailed so
31:58
and it'll be the same thing on issues of
32:00
human nature or value politics and so on
32:04
do there's two directions I want to go
32:08
but I'm wondering if with the armed with
32:11
the tools of logic and science that
32:14
gives you some measure of power in the
32:17
world or some measure of legitimacy and
32:20
actually being able to construct rather
32:23
than the opposite which would be only
32:25
being able to criticize indefinitely
32:27
yeah I would say as human beings that is
32:30
yeah that is the most important power
32:33
that we have is the power of our minds
32:36
to figure out the way the world works
32:38
and to use that to guide our our actions
32:40
where we are compared to other animal
32:43
species wimps physically I we have a big
32:48
brain and learning how to use that very
32:50
well that's that's where it's at for
32:52
humans so the post-modern so if we take
32:55
them as an instructor of example at the
32:57
other end yeah it does become bestiality
33:02
you know if you sabotage which is what
33:05
post-modernism used tavaa cause you're
33:07
your most powerful tools it's also
33:09
mental a you know to give an analogy to
33:11
a young bird that learns to pluck out
33:14
its own feathers
33:15
it's mm-hmm it's real of destruction
33:19
you you described a moment in your
33:23
intellectual life that I think might map
33:25
on to a moment in the intellectual life
33:28
of our culture where there was an
33:32
ability for a variety of viewpoints to
33:36
hold be held in tension and it seems
33:39
like over time within certain pockets of
33:41
academia certain groups of one out I
33:43
wonder what was the what allowed all
33:46
those different viewpoints to be held in
33:49
tension what was the the floor upon
33:52
which all those different thinkers could
33:53
could meet arrest yeah well I think the
33:59
the floor has kind of to operative send
34:03
this metaphor to pillars to subbasements
34:06
that said that support the for so you
34:09
know if the floor is today the the ideal
34:13
of a liberal arts college or a liberal
34:15
arts university where we're going to
34:17
bring in genuine diversity of thought
34:20
and we're going to meet and consider
34:24
each other's viewpoints and let the best
34:26
arguments and interpretations prevail
34:28
and that we're going to be
34:30
self-correcting and any conclusions that
34:33
we reach we're going to be open to
34:36
re-evaluating if that's the floor then
34:39
the the the pillars are going to be one
34:42
that there there are such things as
34:44
facts that reality matters and that we
34:48
are striving to come to understand
34:49
reality and the other is that we are
34:52
capable of doing so if we go through a
34:55
certain process we can go through that
34:58
process individually of being open to
35:03
all of the data and initially having an
35:07
open mind
35:08
orientation to doing our best to try
35:11
various ways of categorizing that data
35:13
to running experiments to analyzing the
35:17
results to putting our interpretation of
35:21
the results out there and letting other
35:23
smart people critique them and then
35:26
taking seriously their critiques and
35:28
responding to those and then to
35:30
formalize that in a social setting which
35:32
is
35:33
what a university is supposed to be
35:34
where we're going to Train young
35:37
students how to do that whether it's a
35:39
literature class and we're interpreting
35:40
Beowulf or if it's a biology class or
35:43
politics class so the platform then is
35:47
we're trying to get to reality there is
35:50
a reality out there and if we follow
35:53
this methodology individually and
35:55
socially we we can do it and what
35:59
happened then is the skeptics in the
36:02
some sectors of the Academy that you're
36:04
talking about they won out they became
36:07
anti-realist you know they came to
36:09
believe that well hey you know religious
36:12
people and scientific people and
36:14
everyone in the middle we've been
36:15
arguing for thousands of years and
36:16
nobody can convince anybody else so
36:18
let's not talk about reality anymore
36:21
people are just going to believe what
36:22
they're going to believe anyway and then
36:24
on top of that they have a couple of
36:28
centuries of very skeptical arguments
36:31
that have been directed against all of
36:32
the elements that I just went through
36:34
that we can be open to facts that we can
36:37
interpret things that we can run
36:39
experiments and the experiments can give
36:41
us decisive results one way or the other
36:43
all of that got hollowed out so both the
36:47
the fact orientation and the the pro
36:50
empiricism and reason orientation got
36:52
hollowed out and is there a yeah is
36:58
there is there a moment where they
36:59
realize that they're undermining the
37:01
ability of a utopia whatsoever because
37:03
if if they don't have a floor to replace
37:07
the floor that they're eroding but like
37:09
I just don't see why you would do that
37:11
if you don't have another floor it seems
37:13
like they have like another better world
37:16
constructed of equity or fairness but it
37:22
seems like it's missing that that
37:23
feedback loop right well that's that's
37:27
an interesting question about
37:28
postmoderns and I think again there are
37:30
subgroups within postmoderns I mean some
37:33
will say you know I'm taking the
37:35
negative conclusion seriously and what
37:37
that means is that all values ultimately
37:40
are failures and I don't have anything
37:44
to do
37:45
place it with now I might have my
37:46
personal commitments that I've inherited
37:48
or not lived with but when I apply my
37:51
own postmodern critical tools to my own
37:54
values I have to realize that my values
37:56
don't escape that is all I'm left with
37:58
is subjective preferences and I can't I
38:01
can publicly assert those but I can't
38:03
publicly argue that they are in fact
38:06
better than anyone elses and so I think
38:11
Derry da for example in the 60s and 70s
38:17
was in in this position and I think
38:21
Foucault to a large extent was in that
38:23
position off and on
38:26
I think someone like Roorkee and Gary
38:32
dog later and in his life they are still
38:36
kind of holding out hope for some way of
38:40
having their value framework escape the
38:44
corrosive effects of a thoroughgoing
38:47
skepticism so there's a late interview
38:50
for example with Jacques Derrida before
38:52
he died I don't know the exact year but
38:55
he's being asked about you know what he
38:58
actually believes positively in effect
39:00
is a variation on the question that you
39:02
just asked and you know basically what
39:05
he says is we're you know forthrightly
39:06
you know post-modernism and
39:08
deconstruction it leads to the creation
39:11
of monsters it's just everything ends up
39:14
being empty and and ugliness everything
39:17
is is ultimately and there is no
39:20
positive value but at the same time and
39:23
then he goes in a somewhat platonic Con
39:27
Thien way but wistfully where he wants
39:30
to say I would he still like to believe
39:32
in some sense that this equalitarian
39:37
world vision can serve as as a regular
39:43
to the standard that in some sense it
39:45
can escape the deconstruction at the end
39:47
of his life Jerry dog was interviewed
39:51
about exactly his issue and whether
39:53
there was any positiveness that can come
39:56
out and he basically said
39:59
no but at the same time he said
40:00
wistfully that he have hoped that some
40:04
sort of egalitarian idealism because he
40:08
was a quasi Marxist all of his career
40:10
far left right and so forth might serve
40:13
in some kind of platonic or Conte and
40:16
regulative idea way as it's almost like
40:19
as another worldly idea that I can't
40:21
account for where it comes from and I
40:23
really hope that it's true but I just
40:25
don't have the intellectual resources to
40:27
to support a belief in in something like
40:30
that so he ends up in a more conflicted
40:32
place Rory I think is is a as a milder
40:36
case you know very well read in the
40:39
history of analytic philosophy and and
40:41
on the Continentals and he ends up going
40:43
very far down the post-modern road in
40:47
terms of his understanding of the human
40:49
condition and his anti realism and his
40:53
skepticism about the powers of
40:55
empiricism and rationalism but at the
41:00
same time he never you know gave up his
41:03
kind of far left social democrat
41:06
convictions that in his heart of hearts
41:07
this is a true and positive vision what
41:11
he seems to settle on is that the way we
41:14
formulate our values is not a rational
41:16
process but he still wants to hold it
41:19
there is such a thing as a right set of
41:22
values that can and should be urged and
41:24
so he wants to recast his rhetorical
41:28
project he's not going to use it in
41:30
terms of truth argument and convince
41:32
people rationally but rather we are more
41:35
emotional association beings and that he
41:40
can just find a good way to use the
41:42
rhetorical tools available to him he can
41:45
recondition a certain number of people
41:47
to have the felt sympathy toward the
41:50
values that you think are things are the
41:52
the right kind of kind of values so he
41:54
wants to return to pre-modern
41:57
religious some sort of reformulated
41:59
religion than with faith based trance I
42:04
wouldn't say that Rory is at all
42:05
religious or or faith-based in a in a
42:09
traditional sense I would say he is
42:11
emotion
42:13
so that we you know something we get
42:16
these values from God or another
42:18
dimension or a source I think you know
42:22
Derry da is to some extent holding out
42:24
hope that maybe we're tapping into some
42:27
sort of regulatory regulative ideas
42:30
source right or there's that quip from
42:32
Heidegger when he's being ender
42:36
interviewed toward the end of his life
42:38
and he says basically everything has
42:40
gone to crap and all of his youthful
42:42
ideals have been shown to have been
42:45
betrayed and so forth and he says only a
42:48
God can save us that then it says hey
42:51
it's not necessarily that he's believing
42:52
in a God but that kind of is hoping that
42:56
in some sense is a god-like creature
42:57
that can maybe come down and sort out
42:59
the mess that we have made for ourselves
43:01
now I don't think Rory is in that
43:03
category at all I think he's a secular
43:05
thinker I think he thinks that we are
43:07
primarily conditioned through a
43:11
linguistic linguistic methodology that
43:15
works more on our emotions and our
43:17
passions and then what we call reasoning
43:20
is an after-the-fact rationalization so
43:23
what we need to do is refashion our
43:25
activism and our use of language in a
43:28
more a conditioning way of doing things
43:32
rather than a logical scientific way of
43:35
doing things and then he's basically a
43:38
nice guy so he in the the left liberal
43:43
toleration is to camp so he is on the
43:46
other side of the those who come out of
43:48
the Marxist revolutionary camp where you
43:51
know really we're fine with taking it to
43:53
the street and punching people and
43:56
killing the class enemies ultimately to
43:58
refashion society so these more of a
44:01
democratic socialists in that sense I
44:04
just I still don't see how they aren't
44:06
just trying to return to a religion or a
44:10
religious way of looking at the world I
44:11
mean is there a third option that
44:15
they're trying to fashion one that's not
44:17
reason one that's not spiritual or God
44:19
based or faith based there's this soupy
44:22
kind of Darwinian emotional neurotic
44:26
there were neural network there trying
44:27
to for him yeah well I know I I take
44:31
your point here when you look at social
44:33
justice warriors right in practice there
44:36
there are some very striking
44:38
similarities to a religious mindset so
44:42
when we say it's a new religion we're
44:44
capturing something right important
44:45
there so but I would say that
44:47
post-modernism is a third option from a
44:51
traditional kind of religion because a
44:54
traditional religion is going to say
44:57
metaphysically you know there there
44:59
really is a reality when we say that God
45:02
exists that's not just a social
45:05
construct that's not just a subjective
45:07
feel-good assertion that I am making out
45:10
there in reality in another dimension
45:13
there is a being who is a God who
45:16
created the world right and so forth so
45:18
that is taken in a literalist sense and
45:22
then the the you know the more modern so
45:24
the more secular thinkers want to say no
45:26
reality is the physical world maybe we
45:29
can make an argument for a God or not
45:31
but probably not and so we're we think
45:35
reality is physical istic material right
45:38
or whatever but what the postmoderns are
45:41
doing is taking seriously the anti
45:43
realism that they do when you push them
45:46
say it is meaningless to talk about the
45:51
nature of reality whether you say it's a
45:53
religious reality or in physical reality
45:56
we just have to get rid of the reality
45:59
talk and so anytime that we use the word
46:02
reality we put it in the scared tapes
46:05
pair quotes or anytime we say there's a
46:07
fact that we put it in a scare quote so
46:10
what we call reality is not out there
46:14
objectively a god or out there
46:17
objectively a physical world but rather
46:20
it is a subjective creation right it
46:22
comes from within we construct our own
46:27
psychological reality and or if we are
46:30
ourselves constructed as individuals to
46:33
be avatars for various or vehicles
46:36
through which social forces operate then
46:39
what we take to be reality is a social
46:42
construction and I am a vehicle for that
46:45
social construction so they are not
46:48
realist in that in that sense at all and
46:50
also I think on the epistemological side
46:54
[Music]
46:56
one way of talking about religion is
46:59
there say there are people who say
47:00
things like I know what I want to
47:03
believe and I'm going to close my mind
47:06
to the arguments and the facts and I
47:08
know that there are good arguments
47:10
against whatever my religious beliefs
47:12
are but I don't want to believe those
47:15
things and so as a matter of willing
47:18
myself I'm going to not consider those
47:21
things and double down and redouble my
47:23
commitment to believing certain things
47:25
so that's sort of a emotion subjective
47:31
based believing that's one a prominent
47:35
account of what faith is and so we can
47:37
say well if we look at the social
47:39
justice warriors and we're trying to
47:42
reason with them and say you know maybe
47:44
there's another way to reconstruct these
47:46
facts or or or you didn't attend to this
47:48
and you get the sense that they have
47:50
their minds made up and they're not open
47:53
to alternate interpretations or as we
47:56
see in the videos that you you've done
47:57
they say you know we're not here to
47:59
debate right you know we're not
48:02
interested in that and I have and you
48:05
know what's going on inside them is they
48:07
have this very strong soup of emotions
48:09
that are pointing them in a certain
48:10
direction and what animates them is
48:13
unleashing those emotions and feeling
48:16
committed to acting out on the basis of
48:19
those emotions and so the psychology is
48:21
is very much the same but it's not
48:24
religious I think in any traditional
48:26
sense because it's not that I'm making a
48:28
faith commitment to some sort of being
48:31
that I take to be an objective reality
48:32
out there however much subjectively and
48:35
emotional istic it's it's a it's a
48:38
subjective emotional esteem n't to a
48:41
purely secular social value agenda but
48:46
there's positive feedback both within
48:48
the religious believer when they face
48:51
the discrepancy between
48:52
reality and their belief and the social
48:55
justice believer when they face the
48:58
reality between facts and or the the the
49:01
data and their theory and that's a being
49:05
in a community of believers a community
49:07
of like-minded individuals that's what
49:10
props them up that it seems like there
49:13
was a hint of that and Rorty where he
49:15
was going to he just needs to create
49:16
enough people around him
49:18
this liberal you know secular blob
49:20
together that that the reality itself
49:23
comes we can disregard reality because
49:26
we have each other
49:26
maybe that's what causes the it yeah
49:31
yeah mail sense that's very perceptive
49:32
and that's no that's it that's exactly
49:34
right so there's a concept that comes
49:37
out of the Objectivist literature of
49:39
social metaphysics that is to say that
49:43
your your metaphysics is constituted by
49:47
your social circle and you either let
49:53
others in your social circle construct
49:56
what you take to be real and suppress
49:59
your independent judgement about what
50:01
reality might be like in order to fit
50:04
into the group and you have to have
50:06
exactly that sense that if enough people
50:07
believe it then we can make it real
50:10
because most of them want to say you
50:12
know they recognize the psychotic break
50:17
that goes on in some individuals you
50:19
know if I say I know there's all those
50:20
facts out there but if I just believe I
50:23
just really believe on something then I
50:24
can make it real all that strong wishful
50:27
thinking so if you put it in
50:28
individualistic terms that seems totally
50:31
nuts and they recognize that but if
50:33
enough people believe it then there's a
50:36
mass psychology and if I have trained
50:40
myself out of exercising independent
50:43
judgment then I can genuinely come to
50:46
believe whatever is that my my social
50:48
group is now there are deep
50:51
epistemological roots in this and this
50:54
is why I think a lot of the philosophy
50:55
of language that the postmoderns are
50:57
very well-versed in you know so if you
51:00
take seriously and fundamentally the
51:03
idea that language is a social crowd
51:06
and I think fundamentally that's a false
51:09
understanding of reality or of language
51:13
language has a lots of social elements
51:15
but it's not fundamentally a social
51:17
problem it's an individual's mind in
51:20
connection with reality and other people
51:22
might teach you words and give you
51:24
theories and and and so forth but
51:27
ultimately what they're trying to do is
51:28
guide your mind to grasp the facts as
51:31
they as they are but the the the the
51:35
fossa fees of language that Rorty and
51:38
Derrida and to a lesser extent Foucault
51:41
and leotard
51:43
are dealing with they to take deeply the
51:46
notion that language is a social product
51:49
and that the individual is born into a
51:52
social group and you learn a language
51:54
and so that is your basic cognitive
51:58
framework it's a socially inculcated
52:02
language but that that language comes
52:05
Freight and with a certain grammar at a
52:07
certain semantics and a certain set of
52:09
interpretive theories about the way the
52:10
world works and so you are conditioned
52:13
to think a certain way and then that
52:16
what the implication of that then is is
52:17
that people who are in different
52:19
linguistic communities are then being
52:21
conditioned in two very different ways
52:23
of understanding the world and so then
52:25
your are off to the races and running
52:27
again and there's no way for us to then
52:30
purge the linguistic gaps and then if
52:33
you combine that within a skepticism
52:35
coming out of your pistol mala ji that
52:37
says all of the the elements of language
52:40
all of the words that we use all of
52:42
those concepts
52:43
if you come to believe that there's no
52:45
way to base them empirically in
52:47
perceptual evidence or in any sort of
52:51
sensory data there's a gap between
52:53
sensation and perception perception and
52:56
conception and so forth then reality
52:58
drops out of the picture so then you
53:00
don't have individuals coming to grasp
53:03
reality by their senses and then forming
53:05
abstractions or you have as members or
53:08
unformed members of a group that are
53:10
born into a linguistic community and
53:12
they are shaped and formed by that
53:14
linguistic community so yeah another a
53:19
little bit you
53:20
you brought up the scare quotes that
53:22
they put around truth and reality and
53:25
you say it's meaningless to talk about
53:27
reality and I'm wondering what is never
53:30
scare quoted and once you go down that
53:32
path there's got to be something to
53:34
stand on something that you can't say
53:36
but that's true even if it is that scare
53:40
quote as as an active right mastering
53:43
something else or being a part of I'm
53:45
like hi I'm gain reality by distancing
53:48
myself from yeah and again I think there
53:51
are variations within post-modernism on
53:54
how to address that question so if we
53:56
take post-modernism and we and we purify
54:00
it and we push all of those themes to
54:01
the end then it does seem like you end
54:04
up where you can't say anything without
54:08
contradicting yourself without engaging
54:10
in a kind of performative contradiction
54:13
so you know even if I put you know
54:15
things in scare quotes I then I'm
54:21
presupposing that the scare quote means
54:23
something that that symbol has a
54:27
cognitive referent and that you even
54:32
though you're a different individual can
54:34
understand what I mean by that and so we
54:37
have a shared reality that we are we are
54:40
dealing with so at a very minimum level
54:43
if I'm going to speak even through the
54:45
act of you know doing ironic statements
54:47
and so on I'm not able to state without
54:53
contradiction that all language is
54:57
subjective and opaque across linguistic
55:01
communities right and so forth so it's
55:03
the to generalize it's the standard
55:06
paradox of relativism but I can't say
55:09
that you know all truths are relative or
55:14
all claims to knowledge are relative
55:17
because then I'm including that as a
55:20
knowledge claim but I'm trying to exempt
55:23
it from the relative ization so all
55:27
knowledge claims are relative is an
55:30
attempt at a universal claim not to make
55:33
a relative
55:34
claim or everything is subjective if I
55:40
want to say that to you well I'm trying
55:44
to communicate an objective truth to you
55:47
that it really is the case factually
55:50
that trues our objective in which case I
55:53
can't say that all truths are subjective
55:56
or you know there is no certainty well
56:01
that is a very strong claim that I'm
56:04
trying to make certain there's a no the
56:06
usual thing dentist is to throw the
56:09
claim that will are you certain of that
56:10
and you have to say well it's probable
56:12
that all the claims are certain or what
56:14
are you sure of that and then you just
56:15
end up babbling right ultimately so you
56:19
know in philosophy we call this the the
56:21
cratylus option for the the ancient
56:23
Greek skeptic named cratylus who
56:27
realized the end road that all of these
56:29
skeptical arguments were reaching you
56:32
can't in fact say anything and so true
56:35
to his beliefs he to shut up and stop
56:37
saying I'm sure some people were happy
56:42
with their yeah we wish right in some
56:46
cases I totally yeah please take the
56:49
Cratylus option so if I think if you
56:58
were then going to go ahead know it just
57:02
what is the what's the net what's the
57:05
safety net then to keep them from going
57:07
that far because they don't want to shut
57:09
up yes well then I don't know and then I
57:15
think we have to say then it comes down
57:16
to a matter of a personal psychology if
57:19
you if you if you want to keep talking
57:21
then you know does seem like you're
57:24
committed to thinking that there are
57:26
some values that are to be gained from
57:28
continuing talking and does seem like
57:33
you're still saying well there are other
57:34
people out there and I believe that they
57:36
are real beings and I believe that
57:39
language is a real phenomenon and I
57:42
believe that language communicates
57:43
something and so I'm going to continue
57:45
to try to use language to to communicate
57:48
with other
57:48
people now of course they might then
57:51
back up and say well you know this is
57:55
just a you know personal happens to
57:58
press my subjective value judgments you
58:00
know some people might you know go into
58:02
a studio and put paint on a canvas I'm
58:05
just going into my my office and putting
58:08
words on a page which makes me feel good
58:10
and at least intellectually that's the
58:12
best I can say about my about my project
58:15
James Lindsay postulates that with
58:19
intersectionality they made the one
58:22
sacred ground or the one real island to
58:25
stand on oppression and that's the one
58:28
thing that you can't question or that's
58:30
the fundamental value and that's how
58:33
they resurrected the project of
58:35
post-modernism and kept it from yeah
58:38
well there is that one
58:40
I think there's I think there's two
58:42
again again there we have a fork in the
58:44
ropes and the other one would be power
58:46
there are some postmoderns who will
58:50
argue this is not necessarily a value
58:52
judgment they'll say if we understand
58:54
the way the world works then the kind of
58:58
the ultimate substratum of reality just
59:01
is power power manifesting itself in in
59:04
various forms and this is then to take
59:07
the the Nietzschean route seriously so
59:11
there are no there are no entities there
59:14
or even ultimately aren't individuals
59:16
that we are all just vehicles through
59:19
which power the will to power is flowing
59:22
and manifesting now if you go that route
59:27
then you're still doing a certain amount
59:29
of metaphysics and I think Foucault
59:32
right on this score you know sometimes
59:35
he's saying that he really is just
59:38
carrying on the Nietzschean tradition
59:40
and so he's not a full-out anti-realist
59:44
but rather we will just reduce all of
59:47
what we think are other realities
59:49
material objects gods human beings and
59:52
so forth two manifestations of of power
59:56
now then to get to the the others right
60:00
those who
60:01
want to say that we do have another
60:05
bottom line and the problem is that yes
60:09
everything is power but power manifests
60:12
itself unequally because some of these
60:14
manifestations are some of these local
60:16
vehicles have a lot more power than
60:18
others and then power being what power
60:20
is the stronger power centers oppress
60:23
and exploit the weaker power centers and
60:27
that's our description of the way the
60:29
world works now if you are a full-on
60:31
Nietzschean then you will say ok so no
60:36
problem that's just the way the world
60:38
works and you might as well just embrace
60:40
the way the world works
60:41
power is a hegemonic dominating process
60:45
and so in some sense if you have
60:48
sympathies your sympathies are going to
60:50
be with the more powerful manifestations
60:53
and might makes right and it just ends
60:55
up that way so the analogy I sometimes
60:58
use is if we step outside of a human
61:01
framework and we look at say a predatory
61:04
species you know we look at the you know
61:06
the Serengeti and you've got lions and
61:08
jackals and zebras and antelope and so
61:10
forth and they are engaged in a power
61:13
struggle for survival and each of those
61:17
different animals is a different center
61:20
of power constituted differently and
61:22
they're in adversarial relations to each
61:24
other and you know one thing you can do
61:27
is say well so the lionesses chased the
61:31
antelope and they caught the Antelope
61:33
and now they are ripping the Antelope
61:35
apart so what how do you evaluate that
61:38
is that a good thing or a bad thing and
61:39
you say well there's not a good thing or
61:42
a bad thing it's just the way the world
61:43
works right it's just you know the today
61:46
the Lions were more powerful than the
61:48
antelope and you would say the same
61:50
thing you know the next day the Lions
61:51
are chasing the antelope and the
61:53
Antelope is faster and the Antelope gets
61:55
away is that a good thing or a bad thing
61:57
you say well the same thing it's just in
61:58
that case speed that power one and the
62:03
world just goes on so we don't apply a
62:04
normative value it's not that we're
62:07
supposed to be in favor of one side by
62:08
Gore or the other
62:09
I just power just continues now
62:14
so those say you know when I look at you
62:17
know animals like I don't know
62:19
wildebeests and zebras you know they're
62:21
kind of fine and so forth but I really
62:24
prefer lions or something majestic about
62:26
lions and the king of the jungle and
62:28
they're more powerful so really I'm
62:30
gonna pull for the Lions and so I like
62:33
because I there's something more noble
62:36
right about being a predator rather than
62:39
there is about being a prey and I think
62:41
Nietzsche if you push Nietzsche then
62:43
he's going to be more on that side of
62:45
the equation now to get to the then the
62:48
James Lindsay equalitarian people I
62:52
think what you would then say is you
62:53
have this understanding that the
62:56
universe is ruled by power and there are
62:58
unequal centers of power and it's all
63:00
adversarial and struggle and somehow you
63:05
find that your sympathies are with those
63:08
who are on the losing end of the
63:10
struggle so when the lion catches the
63:13
zebra you feel for the zebra and the
63:17
lion is kind of the big bad predator and
63:21
so then when we make the transference to
63:23
humans we didn't say okay some humans
63:25
are stronger than others and humans are
63:28
beating up on each others in the whole
63:29
history of the world is the history of
63:31
exploitation and oppression and we feel
63:35
for those who have been on the losing
63:37
end of the oppression now where that
63:40
comes from that's a that's another story
63:43
but then that will then be if you take
63:46
that as your universal value that a good
63:49
person feels for the exploited feels for
63:53
the oppressed feels for the meek then
63:56
you do have a value framework and that
63:58
will then say you can enter the power
64:01
struggle on behalf of those who have
64:05
been on the losing end of things and
64:06
that's okay you can use all of the power
64:09
tools against the exploiter against the
64:11
oppressors because you're on the side of
64:13
the sheep or you're along the side of
64:15
the zebras and so on I think there's
64:17
three versions of postmoderns and one is
64:18
to say there are no values everything
64:21
just is power right or everything is it
64:28
there are no pot values and there is no
64:31
reality even power we just have
64:33
different narratives and some of them
64:35
power scenario and some isn't and a
64:37
third option is to say power is the
64:40
substrate but we're on the side of the
64:42
victims of power do you think that that
64:45
same sort of logic or moral valuation is
64:50
what prompts people to choose reason
64:52
because they see that reason is
64:54
ultimately or logic and reason and
64:56
enlightenment values those are
64:57
ultimately the most powerful tool that
65:00
we have and so I'm gonna put my eggs in
65:02
that basket rather than the postmodern
65:05
basket even if even if they're equally
65:08
wrong no right yeah that's that that is
65:12
the camp in that I would be in so then I
65:14
would say well but I'm putting it in a
65:17
you know in a realist framework than is
65:20
to say when we study the human condition
65:23
we'll study the world if humans are
65:26
going to survive and flourish right in
65:28
the world as it actually is they have to
65:30
use the tools that are available to them
65:32
and reason is one of those tools and it
65:37
is the most important tool that human
65:40
beings have and if we can then show that
65:43
it is efficacious then that is the one
65:45
that we should commit to using so that's
65:47
the the old Francis Bacon line about
65:50
knowledge is power so the capacities
65:54
that are able us to get knowledge we
65:57
don't pursue knowledge just as an end in
65:59
its own sake or because it's kind of fun
66:01
or whatever even though it is fun
66:02
ultimately we want knowledge because
66:05
knowledge translates into practice and
66:07
practice makes us better at living our
66:10
lives is there something else that a
66:13
society needs other than just reason
66:15
then is there like subsidiary aspects to
66:18
a culture that need to be in place in
66:20
order for a reason to maintain its
66:23
efficacy and I'm just and I'm getting
66:25
back it's a loaded question cuz I'm
66:28
getting back wondering if the reason
66:30
that post-modernism came back was
66:32
because there was no religious structure
66:35
under girding or in conjunction with a
66:37
reason structure so it has to
66:40
revert back into a number of people
66:41
can't reason their way through things
66:43
they need to feel their way through
66:45
things and without that religious
66:47
substrate there's no place for those
66:49
people to define a home and connect with
66:52
the reasonable people well maybe we'll
66:54
ask you to say a little bit more about
66:56
what you mean by our religious substrate
66:58
do you mean a shared set of beliefs or a
67:01
shared set of habits or shared moral
67:05
framework is that what you mean by a
67:09
religious one
67:10
yeah fundamentally it would be a
67:11
narrative structure that ties a group of
67:13
people together like just a story of who
67:16
we are and that story would have
67:18
pictures and songs and all the things
67:20
that plug into that story that fill it
67:22
out and give room for all these
67:23
different characters to exist together
67:25
in a cohesive whole I just don't know if
67:27
reason alone can sustain a society and
67:31
all its different aspects okay so if I'm
67:33
understanding your your your your second
67:36
elaboration all right on that point the
67:38
key concepts in there were stories and
67:40
narratives and there the contrast is to
67:44
say that reason is very abstract and
67:47
stories and narratives are
67:49
concretization so we don't talk about
67:52
human nature we talk about Shakespeare
67:56
and we talk about Chaucer and we talked
67:59
about Canterbury Tales and so forth and
68:02
in that we're bringing reason down to
68:05
earth in a way that's understandable to
68:07
more people is that where we're going so
68:10
it's not just an abstracted theoretical
68:13
understanding of the world right and so
68:15
on oh no I know I think that's right
68:19
yeah I would say as human beings
68:23
at least my understanding of Reason what
68:26
I mean by reason is not something that
68:30
is only a set of highly abstract
68:32
propositions at a very theoretical level
68:35
my view of reason is that reason
68:38
operates at all levels of abstraction
68:41
including its connections to one's
68:43
perceptual understanding of the world so
68:47
I an empirical understanding of reason
68:50
not a purely abstracted or what
68:52
sometimes call
68:53
a more rational Avista core appurify
68:55
recent understanding of the world so yes
69:00
and I do think that stories and
69:02
narratives are absolutely crucial for
69:06
even the most you know intelligent
69:09
abstract ly powerful individuals because
69:13
we all and this is part of the knowledge
69:15
is power thesis I think that comes out
69:17
of bacon we all do need to understand
69:20
the world in principle in terms of
69:22
generalities in terms of abstract causal
69:27
systems that are operating out there but
69:30
we also need to be able to translate
69:32
that to the practical day-to-day events
69:35
in our lives and that's a that's a huge
69:37
project so you know if you if we take
69:41
one virtue for example and we can say
69:43
courage is important and you and I can
69:47
abstractly define courage and
69:49
distinguish it from brashness and
69:51
timidity and so on and we could have you
69:54
know beautifully worked out abstract
69:57
taxonomy of the virtue and the
69:59
corresponding vices but in order to
70:03
really understand courage we do need to
70:05
see examples of it those need to be
70:08
concrete eyes so it's got to be you know
70:09
do you remember
70:11
you know Benjamin or Steven when you
70:13
were in second grade and that kid came
70:15
up to you and tried to steal your lunch
70:16
money at that particular example and or
70:20
to have the bedtime stories where your
70:24
mom or your dad is reading you a story
70:25
about made-up characters who are doing
70:28
courageous things and contrasting so
70:31
those are the concrete examples then we
70:35
have the artistic narrative
70:37
representations but we also need to go
70:40
up and be able to define and
70:42
conceptualize it and put it in the
70:44
context of an overall moral theory so
70:46
yeah my understanding of reason that is
70:48
robust and it operates all up and down
70:50
those levels of abstraction so to come
70:55
back then to your question and I don't
70:57
want to put words in your mouth but it
70:58
started to sound like maybe there was a
71:00
intellectual history question there that
71:03
maybe
71:04
for post-modernism and it's skepticism
71:08
came out of the modern project of reason
71:12
being too abstracted or too purified and
71:15
that it gutted or dispensed with you
71:19
know some shared cultural understandings
71:22
that had been built up in the West over
71:24
the course of centuries some of them
71:26
religious some of them not necessarily
71:28
religious and so
71:33
we tried to get to scientific and to
71:36
rational I'm just reconstructing a
71:38
possible question to scientific and to
71:41
rational to quickly and we threw out all
71:44
of the traditions and that left a vacuum
71:47
where people felt empty and not knowing
71:51
what to do and post-modernism rushed in
71:54
to fill that vacuum something like that
71:56
yeah it is that plausible do you think
71:59
that you agree with that well I think
72:03
that's that's the story that
72:05
conservatives will tell and that some of
72:11
the postmoderns also will tell so if you
72:14
think about Nietzsche and his famous
72:16
phrase that God is dead now he does
72:20
think that it's a in one sense a good
72:22
thing that God is dead but he's also
72:25
recognizing that the the death of God
72:28
has happened too fast for most human
72:31
beings and even sophisticated
72:34
intellectual human beings who become
72:37
existentialists you know that for them
72:39
the death of God and all of the
72:42
comforting stories and narratives and
72:44
values that are part of that package if
72:48
you are raised with them and then
72:50
suddenly you read a few books and you're
72:52
20 years old and it's all wrenched out
72:54
and your reason is telling you that God
72:56
is dead and you don't have anything to
72:58
replace that with well then you're in a
73:00
pretty dark place psychologically so so
73:06
I do think no they're the important the
73:08
truth is that we do need to have values
73:13
in place as we are living our lives
73:16
and it's important that they are healthy
73:18
values so you know if you too quickly
73:23
destroy all of your value framework and
73:26
don't have anything to replace it with
73:28
then you will be very psychologically in
73:30
a dark place and culturally more broadly
73:33
of a large number of people who are
73:35
doing the same sort of thing then you
73:37
will destroy the institution's but my
73:40
view is not a it's not a conservative
73:43
one I think that you know as the modern
73:49
world developed a lot of you know
73:52
non-religious and more modern friendly
73:54
value stories were being developed so
73:58
there were lots of positive options
74:00
available to them and people when they
74:02
surveyed their actual lives they could
74:04
see the concrete improvements that were
74:06
going on so I don't I don't think as a
74:10
matter of intellectual history that
74:12
that's a very good account
74:13
I was asked about because I was making a
74:17
statement I don't know if we can counter
74:19
post-modernism as i think of it as being
74:22
rather destructive of our society
74:25
without a better story i think that the
74:27
ultimately they're telling a story
74:29
everybody's got these different stories
74:31
so what what's the bet the best story
74:34
and I understand that reason is what's
74:36
going to evaluate whether or not any
74:38
given story is good but somebody asked
74:40
me when will we ever let go of our
74:42
training wheels as a society when when
74:45
will humankind let go of our training
74:47
wheels meaning you know religion broadly
74:50
construed but it feels like we're in a
74:52
eternal September where there's always
74:54
just younger people or we're always
74:57
being refreshed with people who don't
74:58
understand life or who are fools that
75:01
need to be need that wisdom passed on
75:03
and I just see that narrative as the the
75:08
structure of passing on knowledge over
75:11
and over again through time right yeah
75:13
well I think one of the narratives is
75:18
historical and so where I think history
75:21
education is important so we do have a
75:23
very powerful narrative that starts in
75:27
the Renaissance
75:28
about taking the individual seriously
75:31
and that we want to live a full lives
75:34
and that we shouldn't be captives of you
75:37
know class gender and various other
75:40
restrictions that have been placed on us
75:43
that human beings are wonderful and with
75:48
good education they can really pursue
75:50
high dreams and make something of
75:52
themselves and that is a powerful
75:53
narrative that we tell and we tell it a
75:56
lot and it has succeeded very well or so
75:59
the last four centuries we also have the
76:03
the science and technology narrative and
76:06
I think that also has been very
76:07
successful at some level people
76:08
recognize that you know all of the
76:11
superstitions and all of the crazy
76:13
theories and the religion does get a lot
76:16
of blame here for holding us back on and
76:19
retarding the progress of science it's
76:22
not to say that all religion has to be
76:24
so antagonistic to to science but
76:27
there's a lot of blame to go around
76:30
there but we do have a positive science
76:32
and technology story and we recognize
76:34
that story so you know the Enlightenment
76:36
has been an awesome achievement the
76:38
Renaissance has been an awesome
76:40
achievement or just continuing to make
76:42
continue to make progress so I think the
76:46
fact that we have a great Hollywood
76:50
movie industry that's now expanding and
76:53
it's becoming multi-centered but you
76:55
know as much as we like to be cynical
76:57
and jaded and beat up on Hollywood
76:59
movies the fact is that we get wonderful
77:02
narratives from them that we resonate to
77:05
them we believe in the love story we do
77:08
you know except for a few people you
77:10
know gone through too many divorces or
77:12
bad breakups right and so forth but
77:14
that's that's a narrative it is possible
77:17
for decent people to find real love and
77:22
a happy ever after it's not easy but it
77:24
is possible and we believe in that and
77:27
we we love the action stories and you
77:30
know the competent resourceful smart you
77:34
know James Bond Jason Bourne you run
77:38
through it we love that story and it's
77:40
good versus evil
77:41
and the good guy wins we believe in the
77:44
triumph of good so we do have all of
77:45
these narratives the Renaissance the
77:47
Enlightenment the Hollywood movies I
77:49
think we still are largely in an
77:52
Enlightenment culture and you know as
77:56
you said it is cyclical we do have
77:58
people who long for the the good old
78:00
pre-modern days and the intellectual
78:03
framework that supports that we do have
78:06
people who are cynical and jaded and
78:08
just want to burn the place down and we
78:12
have those people in every generation
78:13
but you also have the people who want to
78:16
make a meaningful life and and we're
78:19
enabling them to do so you know in a
78:22
broad philosophical sense for those of
78:25
the who have studied the Greeks it is
78:28
Plato versus Aristotle versus the
78:32
Sophists right all over again in every
78:34
generation as all three contingents from
78:37
the otherworldly with this worldly and
78:40
then the skeptical relativists and I
78:42
think right now of course we're in a
78:44
somewhat cynical skeptical relativistic
78:47
place in intellectual and high culture
78:49
circles but we do still have a lot of
78:52
great resources in the broader
78:54
enlightenment culture