Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault
- Downloads：6566
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-10-15 05:52:07
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Stephen R.C. Hicks
- ISBN：1925826325
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Tracing postmodernism from its roots in Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant to their development in thinkers such as Michel Foucault and Richard Rorty， philosopher Stephen Hicks provides a provocative account of why postmodernism has been the most vigorous intellectual movement of the late 20th century。 Why do skeptical and relativistic arguments have such power in the contemporary intellectual world？ Why do they have that power in the humanities but not in the sciences？ Why has a significant portion of the political Left - the same Left that traditionally promoted reason， science， equality for all， and optimism - now switched to themes of anti-reason， anti-science， double standards， and cynicism？ Explaining Postmodernism is intellectual history with a polemical twist， providing fresh insights into the debates underlying the furor over political correctness， multiculturalism， and the future of liberal democracy。
Reviews
CuEngineer
，
I read the first few chapters of this book and then quickly closed it because the author is either willing misrepresenting postmodernism for his own agenda， or he is so ignorant of what postmodernism is that he isn’t even qualified to speak about it。 When he started equating Kant’s philosophy as “irrational” and that it gave birth to postmodernism， I knew this book was utter baloney。 Jordan Peterson recommends this book， and if he’s getting his philosophy from this guy， then he is wrong as well。
Crash
，
This book is diabolically incorrect。 You begin to wonder “My god is this the conservative ur-text for their （mis）understanding of postmodernism？” because contained here are all the conservative reactions and the worst misreadings of postmodernism。 You hear all the standard normal guy conservative misapprehensions here of postmodern leftism。 “Postmodernists think nothing means anything at all！ They think life is excrement！ Derrida’s deconstruction means destruction and no more meaning！” At best， This book is diabolically incorrect。 You begin to wonder “My god is this the conservative ur-text for their （mis）understanding of postmodernism？” because contained here are all the conservative reactions and the worst misreadings of postmodernism。 You hear all the standard normal guy conservative misapprehensions here of postmodern leftism。 “Postmodernists think nothing means anything at all！ They think life is excrement！ Derrida’s deconstruction means destruction and no more meaning！” At best， it’s the worst possible bad-faith reading of postmodernism and its ideas and thinkers。 。。。more
Peter Bradley
，
Explaining Postmodernism - Stephen R。C。 HIckshttps://www。amazon。com/gp/customer-re。。。 This is an essential book for understanding the current moment。 Author Stephen Hicks takes the reader on a Cooke's tour of the history of political philosophy。 The first part of this book spends a lot of time on the thinkers that most of us find far too obscure to properly digest， i。e。， Rousseau， Kant， Hegel， Heidegger， Foucault， Derrida， and Marcuse。 What these thinkers share is a rejection of the Enlightenmen Explaining Postmodernism - Stephen R。C。 HIckshttps://www。amazon。com/gp/customer-re。。。 This is an essential book for understanding the current moment。 Author Stephen Hicks takes the reader on a Cooke's tour of the history of political philosophy。 The first part of this book spends a lot of time on the thinkers that most of us find far too obscure to properly digest， i。e。， Rousseau， Kant， Hegel， Heidegger， Foucault， Derrida， and Marcuse。 What these thinkers share is a rejection of the Enlightenment。 The hallmark of the Enlightenment was empiricism and rationalism， i。e。， humans could experience the world as it is and use their reason to understand truth。 Confidence in such things led to a belief that political liberalism and free market capitalism。The history of the Anti-Enlightenment involves philosophers denying the reality of external existence （or our ability to know external existence） because of some other agenda。 For example， Kant was Anti-Enlightenment and denied man's ability to grasp the external world in itself out of a commitment to carve off a regime for "faith。" Similarly， Rousseau believed that civilization was degrading and the source of that degradation was human reason。 For Rousseau， natural human passion was a far surer guide to human flourishing than human reason。 The Anti-Enlightenment was collectivist rather than individualistic。"We thus find in Rousseau an explicitly Counter-Enlightenment set of themes， attacking the Enlightenment’s themes of reason， the arts and sciences， and ethical and political individualism and liberalism。 Rousseau was a contemporary of the American revolutionaries of the 1770s， and there is an instructive contrast between the Lockean themes of life， liberty， and pursuit of happiness in the Americans’ Declaration of Independence and Rousseau’s social contract oath for his projected constitution for Corsica: “I join myself— body， goods， will and all my powers— to the Corsican nation， granting to her the full ownership of me— myself and all that depends upon me。”[ 154]Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （p。 92）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。 Rousseau and Kant were succeeded by Hegel， who subsumed liberty and progress into the liberty and progress of the State as the basic unit of humanity。 Hegelians divided into rightwing Hegelians and leftwing Hegelians。 The distinction between the two was based on what form of collectivism the state would make primary:"The National Socialists recognized that they were on the Right and that the Social Democrats and the Communists were on the Left。 But they found little practical difficulty wooing voters away from both parties by emphasizing the socialist elements of National Socialism。 And they did not find that the theoretical goals of the three parties were that far apart。 Hitler， for example， declared that “basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same。”[ 242] And Josef Goebbels， who had a Ph。D。 in philology and perhaps a better claim to understand the theoretical issues， argued the same point。Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （p。 118）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。The Communists made class primary and the Nazis made the Volk primary， but both were equally committed to overthrowing the bourgeoisie culture， particular capitalism and retraining social values。"Thus Goebbels had often been more than willing to make speeches and write conciliatory essays to the Communists， asking them to recognize that the National Socialists’ and Communists’ major goals of overthrowing capitalism and achieving socialism were the same— and that the only significant difference between the two was that the Communists believed that socialism could be achieved at the international level， while the National Socialists believed that it could and should occur at the national level。[ 245] The differences between National Socialism and Communism boiled down to a choice between the dictatorship of the Volk and the dictatorship of the proletariat。[ 246]Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （pp。 118-119）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。World War II took the right-wing collectivists off the table of history， leaving the continuing fight between liberals and socialists。The problem for the socialists， though， was that their theories were failures。 Capitalism and individualism were able to produce the goods and security that made for a flourishing culture。Faced with this failure， the postmodern shifted to a ground where facts didn't matter。 In fact， the denial of human inability to know facts through language was a core principle:"For the postmodernist， language cannot be cognitive because it does not connect to reality， whether to an external nature or an underlying self。 Language is not about being aware of the world， or about distinguishing the true from the false， or even about argument in the traditional sense of validity， soundness， and probability。 Accordingly， postmodernism recasts the nature of rhetoric: Rhetoric is persuasion in the absence of cognition。Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （p。 157）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。 Post-modern epistemology was put in the service of a post-modern political agenda:"Most other postmodernists， however， see the conflicts between groups as more brutal and our prospects for empathy as more severely limited than does Rorty。 Using language as a tool of conflict resolution is therefore not on their horizon。 In a conflict that cannot reach peaceful resolution， the kind of tool that one wants is a weapon。 And so given the conflict models of social relations that dominate postmodern discourse， it makes perfect sense that to most postmodernists language is primarily a weapon。 This explains the harsh nature of much postmodern rhetoric。 The regular deployments of ad hominem， the setting up of straw men， and the regular attempts to silence opposing voices are all logical consequences of the postmodern epistemology of language。 Stanley Fish， as noted in Chapter Four， calls all opponents of racial preferences bigots and lumps them in with the Ku Klux Klan。[ 298] Andrea Dworkin calls all heterosexual males rapists[ 299] and repeatedly labels “Amerika” a fascist state。[ 300] With such rhetoric， truth or falsity is not the issue: what matters primarily is the language’s effectiveness。 If we now add to the postmodern epistemology of language the far Left politics of the leading postmodernists and their firsthand awareness of the crises of socialist thought and practice， then the verbal weaponry has to become explosive。Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （p。 158）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。 Well， that certainly sounds familiar。Equally familiar:"In postmodern discourse， truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon。 Consider the following pairs of claims。 On the one hand， all truth is relative; on the other hand， postmodernism tells it like it really is。 On the one hand， all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other， Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad。 Values are subjective— but sexism and racism are really evil。 Technology is bad and destructive— and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others。 Tolerance is good and dominance is bad— but when postmodernists come to power， political correctness follows。 There is a common pattern here: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath， dogmatic absolutism in the next。 Postmodernists are well aware of the contradictions— especially since their opponents relish pointing them out at every opportunity。 And of course a postmodernist can respond dismissingly by citing Hegel—“ Those are merely Aristotelian logical contradictions”— but it is one thing to say that and quite another to sustain Hegelian contradictions psychologically。Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （p。 163）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。 But post-modern relativism is an argument strategy， not a philosophical position:"The first option can be ruled out as a possibility。 Subjectivism and its consequent relativism cannot be primary to postmodernism because of the uniformity of the politics of postmodernism。 If subjectivity and relativism were primary， then postmodernists would be adopting political positions across the spectrum， and that simply is not happening。 Postmodernism is therefore first a political movement， and a brand of politics that has only lately come to relativism。Hicks， Stephen R。 C。。 Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault （Expanded Edition） （pp。 164-165）。 Ockham's Razor。 Kindle Edition。 This book is worth reading if only to avoid the gaslighting that we see。 Likewise， it offers an explanation for why we see such obviously bad faith arguments screamed at the highest volume by subintellectuals。 。。。more
Louie Ramirez
，
Explaining Postmodernism is an elaborate， historical analysis of how Postmodernism came to be。Tracing its roots from Kant’s epistemology and Rousseau’s political vision， to socialism’s failures， Hicks does a tremendous job of unraveling the modern day radical Left’s absurdity and temperamental issues。 Once you finish this book， you’ll have a clear vision and understanding of the West’s enemy。
William Brown
，
Excellent genealogy of modern nihilist postmodern philosophy and the murder， genocide， and mayhem it has created。 Yet millions of young folk on college campuses （and some old folks too） do not want to give up the wild dream。 All driven by envy， hate， greed， and desire for revenge on normal people who live in reality。Only gave 4 stars because Hicks seems woefully ignorant about Christianity， creating straw men arguments and constructing moral equivalencies which he just gets plain wrong。
Vinaysheel Rao
，
A must read for any Objectivist who wants to understand the cancer that is Postmodernism/Cultural Marxism in a historical/epistemological context （I don't know if Hicks would agree with me but I use the two synonymously at this time）。 Strongly suggest reading it after completing Leonard Peikoff's History of Philosophy course or AC Grayling's book on the same topic （LP used it for the course I think）。 Having a basic grasp of ITOE （Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology） would also be great。I'll A must read for any Objectivist who wants to understand the cancer that is Postmodernism/Cultural Marxism in a historical/epistemological context （I don't know if Hicks would agree with me but I use the two synonymously at this time）。 Strongly suggest reading it after completing Leonard Peikoff's History of Philosophy course or AC Grayling's book on the same topic （LP used it for the course I think）。 Having a basic grasp of ITOE （Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology） would also be great。I'll let other more sophisticated and eloquent readers give a more exhaustive review。 I'll just say that it is 5/5！ 。。。more
Salam
，
Just the worst。 The author is the archetype of the 14 year-old， Ayn Rand-reading libertarian atheist， except this guy is a philosophy PhD。 Pretty much anyone throughout history who believes in God， is anti-capitalist， or has reservations about "Reason™，" has contributed to postmodernism， or is a postmodernist。 Machiavelli， Rosseau， Kant， Fichte， Hegel， Marx， Kierkegaard， Heidegger are all to blame。 Not even analytic philosophy goes unscathed。 The positions of the aforementioned and more are dryl Just the worst。 The author is the archetype of the 14 year-old， Ayn Rand-reading libertarian atheist， except this guy is a philosophy PhD。 Pretty much anyone throughout history who believes in God， is anti-capitalist， or has reservations about "Reason™，" has contributed to postmodernism， or is a postmodernist。 Machiavelli， Rosseau， Kant， Fichte， Hegel， Marx， Kierkegaard， Heidegger are all to blame。 Not even analytic philosophy goes unscathed。 The positions of the aforementioned and more are dryly， inaccurately， and uncharitably outlined。 Almost no refutation to their widely disparate points is made。 The reader is supposed to be able to tell that their points are bad because they sound bad and offensive to Reason™。 At no point does the author provide any positive defense of his stances， because his stances sound good™ and appeal to Reason™， Rationality™， and The Enlightenment™- save for all the key enlightenment figures who disagree with him。 And it all circles back to how Liberal capitalism is good， and the best politico-economic system across space， time， and culture。 Of course libertarians love claiming to be on the side of rationality， because they can use its fallibility to argue themselves into a world where everything other than transgressions on private property is allowed， which is precisely what Kant， in my view unsuccessfully， understood and was trying to combat。 In a real sense， Ayn Rand libertarians are among the most cynical of postmodernists。 They understand the limits of reason， but instead of pointing them out， they choose to use them to bring the world into an order beneficial to themselves and then claim they're doing it in the interest of "objective morality。" Wubbalubadubdub。 。。。more
Jack
，
I am absolutely floored by this book。 This book goes beyond the incredible foresight of "Clash of Civilizations" by Huntington。 Written in 2004， Hicks could not have been more correct about the philosophical outlook of the 2020's （for reference， "Clash" was written in 92 and predicted a the geo-political climate of 2001-2010 - Hicks predicted the philosophical climate nearly 20 years in advance， a feat similar to Nietzsche's revolutionary prose。）。 There are many negative reviews here largely poi I am absolutely floored by this book。 This book goes beyond the incredible foresight of "Clash of Civilizations" by Huntington。 Written in 2004， Hicks could not have been more correct about the philosophical outlook of the 2020's （for reference， "Clash" was written in 92 and predicted a the geo-political climate of 2001-2010 - Hicks predicted the philosophical climate nearly 20 years in advance， a feat similar to Nietzsche's revolutionary prose。）。 There are many negative reviews here largely pointing to his critique of "leftism" or interpretation of Kant。 First， anyone who understood Kant knows Hick's analyses of Kant's philosophy to be correct - anyone who truly understood Kant felt the postmodern dread Hicks explains prior to reading this book。 Second， "leftism" does not refer to "liberals"。 It refers to the class-oriented， illiberal （as in classical Liberal） collectivism which has proven to be a demon left un-slain after the Cold War。 I believe this book will make a resurgence in the coming years。 I am astonished by how much of this book has proven to come true regarding the social norms of the United States since its publication。 I am also fascinated by the Hick's effective re-framing of modern philosophy。 Hicks believes， and I think， correctly， that the enlightment had a shorter run than we conventionally credit it for having- from Decartes （late 1400） to Kant （late 1700）。 Post-modernity， or absurdism as I like to call it， really began in the late 1700s。 We are just now coming to terms with realism's ultimate defeat and wondering where it all went wrong。 Well， Hicks provides an outstanding roadmap。 As a philosophy buff myself， I rebuke all the naysayers and assure you that every succinct outline of a major philosophers cited within is accurate insofar as it mentions to critical kernels of knowledge leading to the post-modern world we live in today。 This book is a must read。 。。。more
Scott Ehnert
，
I don't know enough about post-modern philosophy to rate this well -- I did find it thought provoking。 I don't know enough about post-modern philosophy to rate this well -- I did find it thought provoking。 。。。more
Alan Johnson
，
Stephen R。 C。 Hicks， a philosophy professor and the author of this book， is an Objectivist， i。e。， a follower of Ayn Rand。 He does not （at least in this book） advertise the more absurd aspects of Rand’s philosophy， e。g。， her glorification of the cigarette and the smokestack， which are obvious threats to human health （Rand herself developed lung cancer） and the environment。 Nor does he slavishly imitate Rand’s polemical and dogmatic style。 I have read all of Rand’s major works， some of them more t Stephen R。 C。 Hicks， a philosophy professor and the author of this book， is an Objectivist， i。e。， a follower of Ayn Rand。 He does not （at least in this book） advertise the more absurd aspects of Rand’s philosophy， e。g。， her glorification of the cigarette and the smokestack， which are obvious threats to human health （Rand herself developed lung cancer） and the environment。 Nor does he slavishly imitate Rand’s polemical and dogmatic style。 I have read all of Rand’s major works， some of them more than once。 Rand had a concept of reason and an opposition to both relativism and religion。 Hicks shares much of Rand’s epistemology。 It is unclear， at least from this book， the extent to which Hicks agrees with Rand’s political philosophy。 Rand was a minarchist—arguing that the functions of government should be limited to “the police， to protect men from criminals—the armed services， to protect men from foreign invaders—[and] the law courts， to settle disputes among men according to objective laws” （Ayn Rand， “The Nature of Government，” in The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism [New York: Signet Books， 1964]， 112 [italics in the original]）。 She was adamantly opposed to socialism and the welfare state and an outspoken proponent of laissez-faire capitalism。 Suffice it to say that I do not agree with Rand’s minarchist views。Although I have studied works of philosophers from Confucius and Plato to the present， I do not profess to be an expert on postmodernism。 I have read some primary sources as well as a number of secondary books and articles regarding theoretical and applied postmodernism， but I simply do not have the time， patience， or interest at my advanced age to read the many thousands of pages of postmodern writings。 I find the extremely jargonized， ritualized， and question-begging postmodern literary style （at least as it appears in recent decades） quite off-putting and time-wasting。 The following remarks should be understood accordingly。I am aware of the multiplicity of postmodern views， including some differences between the founders （Foucault， Derrida， Lyotard， Rorty—who themselves presented different formulations） and present-day theoretical and applied postmodernists （who also sometimes disagree among themselves）。 I address here what appear to be common elements among most contemporary postmodernists。 As with Hicks， I do not discuss the substantive content of such postmodern offshoots as postcolonial theory， queer theory， critical race theory， postmodern feminism and gender studies， and disability and fat studies。I agree with Hicks that theoretical and applied postmodernism opposes reason， evidence， and modern science， that it is firmly rooted in metaphysical and ethical relativism， that it opposes freedom of speech， and that it is often cynical and nihilistic。 Like the theocrats of seventeenth-century Massachusetts Bay （see my book The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience）， contemporary postmodernism supports freedom of speech for those of the postmodern faith but opposes freedom of speech for anyone else。 Although contemporary postmodernism denies that such a thing as truth exists， it inconsistently claims that it alone possesses the truth。 I could go on and on， but Hicks does a good job explaining such aspects of postmodernism， along with copious citations to and quotations from postmodern writings。Hicks generally praises modernism， which he defines as the intermediate historical stage between premodernism （dominated by religion） and postmodernism （see the preceding paragraph）。 However， he does recognize some errors of modernism， for example， the modern scientific and philosophical denial of free will。 I agree with the Objectivist opposition to the modern denial of free will， and I discuss the relevant scientific and philosophical issues in my book Free Will and Human Life。Hicks has an interesting interpretation of the history of philosophy。 Some reviews of his book on Goodreads and Amazon take issue with this history。 I think he is mostly correct， though his sketch elides many details and may be mistaken or overly speculative at some points。 His account of Rousseau is a tour de force， relying almost entirely on quotations from the great philosopher’s writings。 However， Hicks incorrectly implies that Kant is to be grouped with the general run of religionists。 Kant expressed an enlightened and unorthodox view of religion （essentially reducing religion to his philosophical ethics） that resulted in his being censored and censured by the Prussian government: see， for example， Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason translated by George di Giovanni， in Immanuel Kant， Religion and Rational Theology， edited and translated by Allen W。 Wood and George di Giovanni （New York: Cambridge University Press， 1996）， including the translator’s introduction。 Hicks spends many pages on postmodern metaphysical or scientific subjectivism and relativism but has only a brief discussion of postmodern ethical relativism。 I would reverse that emphasis。 He posits the beginning of subjectivism （as distinguished from objectivism） with Kant。 Although it is true that Kant， in his critical period， taught that humans cannot know the noumenal realm， thereby letting religion in through the philosophical back door， Kant’s purpose was also to restore concepts of free will and morality that modern philosophy and science had eschewed。Hicks is a firm adherent of Aristotle’s principle of contradiction （now often called the law of noncontradiction）。 As I state in Chapter 1 of my forthcoming book Reason and Human Ethics， “It is true that [the principle of contradiction] appears to break down at the frontiers of physics。 Our understandings of quantum physics and perhaps relativity physics do not seem amenable to the principle of contradiction—not to mention the long-standing metaphysical perplexities of a first cause， the beginning of time， and the infinity of space。 But it is my strong conviction that the principle of contradiction applies， and should apply， to ethical and political matters。” I have posted the current draft of this chapter （titled “What Is the Basis of Human Ethics？”） at https://www。academia。edu/65022633/Wha。。。 and the current draft of Chapter 2 （titled “Human Reason”） at https://www。academia。edu/74417357/Hum。。。。 These chapters articulate my own views on some of the topics addressed by Hicks’s book。 For example， Chapter 1 discusses， inter alia， ethical relativism， classical reason， religion， emotion/sentiment， and a secular teleological understanding of human nature。 Chapter 2 discusses in depth my concept of human reason， emphasizing （in contrast to modern philosophy） its applicability to ends as well as means， the differences between formal and informal logic， fallacies， and critical thinking。 I discuss quantum physics and its implications for free will in Free Will and Human Life。Hicks does not specify his exact political theory in this book， but he constantly uses the word “socialism” in a negative context without defining the term。 This is problematic in an era in which many people use the word “socialism” to mean everything from the Stalinist totalitarian command economy to the Scandinavian welfare state to FDR’s New Deal to contemporary “liberal” （in the American sense） social and economic policies。 Hicks seems to use the word in its historical meaning as one or another form of doctrinaire Marxism。 But he should have been clearer about exactly what he means and does not mean by the term。 Would， for example， he support the abolition of Medicare as being—as Ronald Reagan alleged—a “socialist” policy？Although I disagree with some arguments and some details in this book， it is， overall， an excellent analysis of postmodernism and its historical antecedents。Alan E。 JohnsonIndependent Philosopher and Historian 。。。more
Jonatan Pålsson
，
Very thorough on what the roots and facets of postmodernism are。 It puts your intuitions about the fallacies of the ideology into words and gives a great historical account of where we've been and where we might be heading politically and culturally。 Very thorough on what the roots and facets of postmodernism are。 It puts your intuitions about the fallacies of the ideology into words and gives a great historical account of where we've been and where we might be heading politically and culturally。 。。。more
Geoff
，
Great read。 I think postmodernism's embrace of the irrational and attack on reason has provided it with a boundless army of useful idiots。 Great read。 I think postmodernism's embrace of the irrational and attack on reason has provided it with a boundless army of useful idiots。 。。。more
Tayeb
，
highly recommended for anyone who is interested in understanding not just postmodernism but the epistemological and political history of western civilization from the enlightenment era to the postmodern age。
Azkik
，
A decent enough overview of the genesis of Postmodernism and its malice， albeit with the contributions of liberal ontology downplayed。 There are also numerous wildly misunderstood or outright misrepresented selections from Nietzsche and especially Heidegger， among others。 The author seems to also struggle with the implications of anything regarding the social construction of language， even going so far as to suggest that it somehow comes from the individual。The author's naive individualist and a A decent enough overview of the genesis of Postmodernism and its malice， albeit with the contributions of liberal ontology downplayed。 There are also numerous wildly misunderstood or outright misrepresented selections from Nietzsche and especially Heidegger， among others。 The author seems to also struggle with the implications of anything regarding the social construction of language， even going so far as to suggest that it somehow comes from the individual。The author's naive individualist and absolute rationalist ideological possession even has them asserting that rationalizations are somehow objective， rather skipping the step of intersubjective verification and going against empirically observed phenomena like the famous Split Brain experiments。 Perhaps most bizarrely， after the author provides examples for all of the ways in which postmodernists have identified points of failure in individualistic， liberal， and capitalist institutions and subsequently sabotaged， subverted， and abused them， the author continues to behave as if none of it happened and that the now clearly rigged game can just continue to be played by the rules because the postmodernists are "irrational" and "humans are rational。" Further， in the years since this book's publication （and very few years at that）， many of the points selected as proof of Capitalism's resilience and defiance of socialist or postmodernist predictions are now falling flat。 Additionally， the author's contention that Postmodernism would just stay in universities （as if they don't produce secular dogma） clearly held no water， now that Woke Capital and McRevolutions have been increasingly endemic。 。。。more
Ricardo Tannus
，
Though I consider myself to be an optimist， lately， I have found myself having the same despairing conversation over and over again with friends and relatives。 The Relativism/Nihilism， censorship and cancel culture that we are living through are some of its fixtures。Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism" was a fantastic - albeit quite technical - read demonstrating how we have found ourselves， and our societies， in this situation。 I am by no means a big connoisseur of Philosophy and it was a Though I consider myself to be an optimist， lately， I have found myself having the same despairing conversation over and over again with friends and relatives。 The Relativism/Nihilism， censorship and cancel culture that we are living through are some of its fixtures。Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism" was a fantastic - albeit quite technical - read demonstrating how we have found ourselves， and our societies， in this situation。 I am by no means a big connoisseur of Philosophy and it was a big surprise to find that many of the sypmtoms we witness nowadays are actually the ramifications of ideas posited centuries ago。Hicks does an amazing job conducing us through centuries of Philosophy and philosophers showing how the subjectivism of Kant， Hegel， Hume and Marx opposed Illuminism and a more objetive way of thinking。 It is astounding， and alarming， to see how this nowadays connects "naturally" with our ever-expanding morality compass。"The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible， and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary。" 。。。more
Jacob Beal
，
This book does a great job reviewing the formation of thoughts in the postmodernist movements。He flounders miserably in dealing with Christian thought he lumps all Christians into a relativistic camp rather than dealing with Christian scholarship
Tony Lee Ross Jr。
，
Here's the tl;dr critique if you want to know why you probably shouldn't waste your time with this book。 1。） Hicks labels people as postmodernist who either are clearly not postmodernist or specifically say they aren't postmodernists and go out of their way to critique actual postmodernists。 （Andrea Dworkin is an example） 2。） Hicks saw the title "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant and thought he was critiquing the dictionary definition of reason。 （He wasn't） 3。） Hicks doesn't understand Hume。 For Here's the tl;dr critique if you want to know why you probably shouldn't waste your time with this book。 1。） Hicks labels people as postmodernist who either are clearly not postmodernist or specifically say they aren't postmodernists and go out of their way to critique actual postmodernists。 （Andrea Dworkin is an example） 2。） Hicks saw the title "Critique of Pure Reason" by Kant and thought he was critiquing the dictionary definition of reason。 （He wasn't） 3。） Hicks doesn't understand Hume。 For more information: I recommend you watch this YouTube video by Cuck Philosophy。 https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=EHtvT。。。 。。。more
Денис Фишман
，
Мне безумно понравилось пояснение сути современного левого движения и постмодернизма как явления философско-политического。 Возможно это полностью совпало с моей картиной мира， поэтому я пришел в полный восторг）？ Так или иначе， крайне советую читать， я бы даже частично включил книгу в школьную программу， для лучшего миропонимания， но это， конечно， нереально））
Travis
，
Excellent book， this author is brilliant。 Definitely not an easy read version on the topic of postmodernism and it's influence on rising socialistic movements。 While I enjoyed the book and cherished his eye opening perspective and historical points， I would have liked a more simplistic version for the everyday reader。 This is a book America needs to read。 Excellent book， this author is brilliant。 Definitely not an easy read version on the topic of postmodernism and it's influence on rising socialistic movements。 While I enjoyed the book and cherished his eye opening perspective and historical points， I would have liked a more simplistic version for the everyday reader。 This is a book America needs to read。 。。。more
Antonio Isaias Perez Jr
，
It is less of an explanation of Postmodernism than it is an apology for the Enlightenment， which is fine but perhaps the book should have been titled and marketed differently。 He does give a very general overview of the history of philosophical thought and describes how Postmodernism came about。 And of course， it is necessary and important to bring up the enlightement but he does so in a way I think isn't proper for what the book is supposed be。 And then there is conection he makes between with It is less of an explanation of Postmodernism than it is an apology for the Enlightenment， which is fine but perhaps the book should have been titled and marketed differently。 He does give a very general overview of the history of philosophical thought and describes how Postmodernism came about。 And of course， it is necessary and important to bring up the enlightement but he does so in a way I think isn't proper for what the book is supposed be。 And then there is conection he makes between with faith and religión， arguing that the "triumph of reason" meant the fall of faith which of course many thinkers （religious ones too， as Hicks points out） did and do believe。 But leaves out the fact that most of the enlightenment thinkers he hails were themselves very religious and didnt believe that there was a conflict between reason and faith， on the contrary。 Whether they are right in thinking that is another matter but the fact that the author would leave that out is quite odd。Other than that， it was a pretty good read。 。。。more
Aaron and Megan Massey
，
Superb review of postmodernismBuy this book if you want a concise and clear overview of the ideology now driving the key influencers of the democratic party and who are presiding over the key institutions in the US。 This book has immense explanatory power。 You will see our culture anew。
Mark Berliner
，
4。5/5Probably will have to re-read it for the third time。
RORY CHAMPION
，
This is quite simply excellent although the title should be something like "Explaining the psychology of socialist nihilism" which is basically the meat which hangs off the bones of postmodernism。 Hicks lays out very convincing and well thought through arguements of where postmodernism comes from and it's evolution into today's woke left ideologically driven politics。 This is quite simply excellent although the title should be something like "Explaining the psychology of socialist nihilism" which is basically the meat which hangs off the bones of postmodernism。 Hicks lays out very convincing and well thought through arguements of where postmodernism comes from and it's evolution into today's woke left ideologically driven politics。 。。。more
Andre
，
I found this very enlightening。 I had thought that postmodern was mainly just "truths" are subject and relative。 I didn't realize how deep （back to Kant） this is historically。 Nor that it was a reaction to enlightenment type of thinking， or that to a large extent it categorically rejects many of the premises of enlightenment thinking as a starting point then builds from there。 The entire exercise strikes me of a rehash of many religion: start with what we want the world to be like， or ought to b I found this very enlightening。 I had thought that postmodern was mainly just "truths" are subject and relative。 I didn't realize how deep （back to Kant） this is historically。 Nor that it was a reaction to enlightenment type of thinking， or that to a large extent it categorically rejects many of the premises of enlightenment thinking as a starting point then builds from there。 The entire exercise strikes me of a rehash of many religion: start with what we want the world to be like， or ought to be like， then tie ourselves in knots "proving" that it is so。 It's a lot of sophistry。 I ultimately think the exercise will fall apart， if only because reason is not socially constructed。 In fact it leads to science and science has a very good track record of allowing us to understand objective reality。 That leads to very real improvements in quality of life for pretty much everyone effected。 However， if we can't get out of this trap of postmodernism we may be doomed as a society。 。。。more
BadFeelingAboutThis
，
Makes commies seethe 10/10
David Steele
，
A look behind the curtain at the ideas and philosophies that may well end up destroying everything we’ve ever cared about。I knew literally none of this before I found this book。 Now I want to take my learning further in follow-up study。
Reed
，
If you want to really know where woke culture and modern wheels-off leftism originated， here you go。
Terralynn Forsyth
，
An interesting overview of the development of postmodernism that has given rise to some of what we see from critical theories today。 Have heard some strong arguments that go against some of the research in the book that I haven't investigate in depth， but would still recommend for getting a grasp on an alternative view to postmodernism （to what is mainstream in academia or media today）。 An interesting overview of the development of postmodernism that has given rise to some of what we see from critical theories today。 Have heard some strong arguments that go against some of the research in the book that I haven't investigate in depth， but would still recommend for getting a grasp on an alternative view to postmodernism （to what is mainstream in academia or media today）。 。。。more
Amici Nybråten
，
An almost total waste of paper。 Author doesn't seem to know what he's talking about and spews bullshit。 An almost total waste of paper。 Author doesn't seem to know what he's talking about and spews bullshit。 。。。more
Rajan
，