<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Postmodernism exposed
Review: A great read. It differed from what I expected -- which was more about the content of postmodernism -- but it was very informative. The book is more about the origins -- the philosophical predecessors -- of postmodernists. They were Kant, Hegel, Rousseau, Heidegger , Marcuse, and some less well known names. It seems to me that Kant was less responsible for postmodernism than the others than what Professor Hicks says or suggests, but he may be correct. When Kant said he found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith, I think he meant religious faith. Postmodernists wish to deny not only knowledge, but the ideas of truth, objectivity, and the efficacy of science and reason, which they view as little more than tools to political power. Postmodernists have exercised their faith not in religion, but in socialism and egalitarianism.
Hegel's worship of the all-powerful state and Rouseau's worship of humans' "animal spirits" are widely known and indisputable. Postmodernists, when it comes to politics, revel in such worship. They claim there are no objective standards by which to judge one person's ideas or actions, especially in the political or cultural realms, so anything goes -- at least for those without the political power. The basic idea is to "deconstruct" the ideals or methods of one's opponents in order to expose their subjectivity and then to try to impose one's own subjectivity on them.
I have had little patience to read very much by postmodernists such as Derrida and Foucault. I have tried, but their subjectivity, lack of depth and logic, and especially obscurity is too painful. (While I am not fond of Rorty's ideas, his clarity is superior in comparison.) Postmodernist obscurity is exemplified by the hoax article that physicist Allen Sokal published in the leftist journal Social Text (briefly covered by Hicks) and the "random postmodern text generators" one can find on the Internet.
Professor Hicks also explains the origin of the term postmodernism and clearly explains how it differs from pre-modernism and modernism (the latter being basically the Enlightenment).
In conclusion, I generously thank Professor Hicks for exposing the postmodernist soul.
Rating: 
Summary: Good
Review: Good to see someone actually divising the difference between a particular way of thinking and the political/socialogical ends to which it has been applied. Unfortunently the triumph subjectivity or failure of positivism is real, but it does not eleminate logic (meaning I can not give a G-d like answer to anything, but I can take risks with my limited human intellect---for example, I can point to the socialists experiments of the 20th century, and pretty well say there is not much hope in that). The reason why I originally fell in love with "post-modernism," was that I was horrified at scientific claims of absolute knowledge. I saw in such claims an attack upon religious possibilities, so when I was a teenager, I embraced extreme skeptism as a means of denying sciences/cultures claims to reality. Overall, I think most post-modern sociolists are idoits. I think their obsession with soiclaism and one world, brotherhood of humans, utopia dreams are a secret savaltion/hope/group think delusion. If they were not such "important radical thinkers shaping the future dysteny of humankind," I do believe most would have to face how boring and lonely their lives are. This goes for all of you freaky hegelalian nationalists out there also!!
Rating:
Summary: Post-Modernism
Review: Post-modernism is finally exposed as the scatological, pathetic, hypocrital pseudo-science it is. And professor Hicks eloquently explains why so many of the worlds brightest, left- leaning intellectuals have been hypnotised by its spell and flase promise of power at the expense of reason, control at the expense of truth, and dominance at the expense of liberty. I only wish Michel Focualt would have saved us all the trouble by blinding himself with his pens rather then writing such garbage and serving as the flase profit of "post-modernism" which I see as nothing more then the raw lust for power.
Rating:
Summary: This book should be in every student's backpack.
Review: This book should be in every student's backpack. In the post-modern intellectual battleground in which each student find himself submerged - and sometimes drowning - this book offers essential intellectual self-defence for every student who still cares to think. No matter if you already know every answer to all the sundry irrationalities you face every day - herewith is a comprehensive summary of your intellectual enemy that for the first time clearly and comprehensively puts each of the post-modern heroes in their place.
Why is that so important? Well, what do you feel when you watch a butterfly emerge from its chrysalis? You watch it greet the sun, spread its wings and almost give thanks to existence for its rebirth. Imagine then another human being gleefully stamping their boot on that reborn butterfly, smilingly stamping the life out of it. Such is the situation in many places of academe. This book gives a defence to the fragile butterfly of the intellect.
One of the worst periods of my own life was spent at Auckland's Architecture School where I found myself being taught by intelligent human beings, many of whom seemed somehow intent on snuffing out young students' sense of certainty and their joy in learning about ideas and creating great art. I watched as many students became either irrational automatons emulating the noises made by these lecturers, or gave up in disgust - often questioning themselves and their own ability. They were crushed. That situation was not unique to my own alma mater - it pertains to nearly every grove of academia in the Western world. This book explains the mentality of scum who earn a pay-cheque by gleefully crushing impressionable young minds, and the strategies they employ to do it.
The book is a "great but very scary read." Written like an adventure story, it guides the reader confidently and clearly through the intellectual history of the last three-hundred years in order to explain why the `new intellectual age' we find ourselves in is in most respects a toxic Age of Crap.
My only gripe is that the adventure story does not end with a happy ending - although Ayn Rand and the Objectivist antidote to this intellectual poison are implicitly present on every page, where I expected their explicit appearance at the conclusion Stephen delivers only the truism that "what is still needed is a refutation of these [post-modern] historical premises, and an identification and defense of the alternatives to them." Here would have been an obvious opportunity to send the reader to cleaner Objectivist pastures elsewhere in which this work is being done. A recommended reading list would have been a welcome addition - perhaps he intends to set up such a thing online?
In any case, as with the recommendations given by others, this is "not a book review but flat-out endorsement." In many respects Stephen's book is a much-needed update of Rand's essay "For the New Intellectual' but this time expanded and with footnotes - it is like seeing the `director's cut' of Rand's earlier essay. It is that good.
Buy one for a student today. You might just save their life.
Rating:
Summary: A badly needed expos?
Review: This is an enthusiastic endorsement of Stephen R. C. Hicks? Explaining Postmodernism. It is some great but very scary read.
Professor Hicks has written a sweeping yet very readable explanation of why contemporary intellectuals embrace postmodernism. This is the position widely championed in academic circles?from philosophy, literature, law and the social sciences?that holds that there is no truth, no reality, no clear meaning, no understanding and, most of all, no value in relying on human reason for any purpose whatsoever.
Most folks probably heard of this movement only rarely and indirectly. They hear about multiculturalism, the view that no culture is better than any other, all viewpoints no matter where they originate are worthy of respect. They learn about it by brushing up against political correctness, which is a paradoxical aspect of postmodernism since it assumes that saying and doing certain things is wrong and ought to be avoided. But, of course, postmodernism holds that nothing can be shown to be right or wrong. So how could anything be shown to be politically correct or incorrect?
Well, just so?nothing can be so shown but those who hold political power can still insist and force the rest of us to obey. Not because they can reasonably claim that their edicts are correct, true or right but because they prefer them. Yes, that?s all there is to postmodernist views on how we should act, namely, the preferences of those who get away with running the show.
Professor Hicks? wonderful account of how we ended in this fix?whereby nothing is deemed to be true or right or good but all we have is what influential people impose on the rest of us?is a tour de force of clear historical research. The most important figures in Western intellectual history show up, for better and for worse?most for worse?and among them the greatest villain is Immanuel Kant, the 18th Century German philosopher who brought about what has been called a Copernican Revolution. The substance of this revolution is that it is not reality that gives us the contents of our minds but our minds?or some great Mind (if you listen to Hegel)?that produces reality.
Yes, you read it right?the postmodernists do not think there is a real world for us to know. Instead everything is really invented, by everyone?s?or some obscure being?s?subjective mind. So there is no right way to interpret a novel, poem or even a scientific theory. It all depends on who is doing the ?interpreting,? which is to say, who is injecting his or her creative ideas into the stream of ideas of a society. There is no reality out there, however, to show whether these ideas are good or bad, sound or unsound. And if one protests that this is nonsense, postmodernists will quickly retort that one is deluded to think that ideas must be logical, reasonable. No, that?s just a prejudice.
That is what major thinkers believe these days, all around the Western world. Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton?you name the prestigious institution of your choice and the major figures in it, the books their presses like to publish, advocate this stuff with inordinate confidence built on absolutely nothing but thin air.
Professor Hicks? book was published in Tempe, AZ, by Scholargy Publishers, not by one of the ?important? publishing houses. This is sad but not at all surprising, considering the monumental expos? Professor Hicks manages to bring off in his work. Who would publish a book within the mainstream publishing community that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that mainstream publishing is largely complicit in perpetrating the greatest absurdity in intellectual circles when it keeps rolling out the works of such prominent figures as Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, Stanley Fish and others, all of whom are enamored by the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre and other absurdists.
One of Professor Hicks? most astute contributions is to explain why most of these absurdists are politically supportive of the Left?of socialism?even after the undeniably evident practical and theoretical demise of that political economic system. The story is brilliantly told. This read is eminently worth it and not beyond anyone?s attentive reach.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading
Review: When speaking with a colleague about this book, he was surprised to find out that Postmodernism has such a storied history including the likes of Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. And many readers also will be surprised to see the intellectual pedigree that Postmodernism boasts. Of course, Dr. Hicks isn't arguing that Kant or Russell were Postmodernists--but what he does in this quick and highly readable book is to show how Postmodernism evolved out of the ideas and historical trends of the last few hundred years in philosophy. Tracing the development of various ideas in epistemology and politics, Hicks finds the roots of Postmodernism in Kant, Rousseau, and other Counter-Enlightenment thinkers. The primary thesis of this book is that "the failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary." The history of modern epistemology has, by and large, failed at defending reason as one's means of knowing the world. The failure of socialism, both economically and morally, lead to, as Hicks calls it, a "crisis of faith" among many in the Left. In order to maintain their belief in the superiority of socialism over capitalism, many theorists used the failures of epistemology to eschew reason, reality, and truth. One now no longer has to deal with the evidence that shows the superiority of capitalism. Thus, we end up with the nihilistic, skeptical, and relativistic Postmodernism dominating much of academia and the political left.Dr. Hicks is able to condense abstract and complicated ideas for a non-philosopher to understand without losing the essence of the ideas. He competently and clearly presents the ideas and positions without ever degenerating into ad hominem or resorting to polemics. As such, I highly recommend this wonderfully written and highly readable work to anyone--philosopher or not--with an interest in the history of ideas or an interest in understanding postmodernism.
<< 1 >>
|
