[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does he attempt to explain the "why" - that this stuff arose and got so widely accepted Peter?  That's what tortures me and drives me mad sometimes - and has for decades. 
I can understand how the occasional depraved idiot with severe psycho-social problems can get up and propose the demented.
I just don't know and can't understand why so many apparantly "normal" people can accept the unacceptable, and condone depravity..
Cass




Post 1

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh - incidentally, can you give me the publishers? Thanks



Post 2

Tuesday, September 7, 2004 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Cass asked: "Does he attempt to explain the "why" - that this stuff arose and got so widely accepted Peter?"

He certainly does, Cass - and how! :-)

The publisher is Scholargy Press, 2004 - you can click through to Amazon to see the details.

Cheers.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 1:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Peter, you beat me to it. I've almost finished reading Stephen Hicks' "Explaining Postmodernism" and I had already begun a review for Solo!

It is indeed a mesmerizing and important book. Since you have so well reviewed it, I will not finish my own review -- but (waste not, want not, to coin a phrase) I'll post what I'd written below:

"I'm just now reading a book that, more than anything else I've read, explains the anti-Enlightenment, anti-reason trend in our world. It is "Explaining Postmodernism" by Stephen Hicks. (It's available at Amazon.com -- and yes, this is a plug.) It's an enormously impressive work. Hicks' description of postmodernism is spine-chilling; it encompasses the very worst that Ayn Rand ever said about the modern age. First and foremost, postmodern philosophers deny the validity of reason; they do not, however, say that postmodernism is true -- because nothing is true or false. "Reason," writes postmodernist Michel Foucault, 'is the language of madness.' From its beginning in the attack on reason, Hicks demonstrates that the rest of postmodernism inevitably follows: the denial that there is an independent reality, the attack on individualism, a blistering contempt for liberal democracy, the rejection of capitalism, the hatred of Western civilization, the hostility toward science and technology -- all of which have been adopted by a leading segment of the political Left. Hicks traces the roots of postmodernism in the ideas of Rousseau, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Marx, and others, he explains its popularity today, and he discusses the strategies of postmodernism.

"I strongly recommend that every Soloist read this book. It provides us with a greater understanding of our world -- and valuable intellectual ammunition in the fight against some of its worst aspects. Apart from its ideological importance, "Explaining Postmodernism" is written with brilliant clarity. One does not have to be a philosopher to profit greatly from it.

"I want to see this book succeed in the marketplace, and when you read it, I think you will feel the same way. One way to ensure its success is to talk about it to one's friends, one's acquaintances, one's classmates, in letters to editors, in articles, in theses, everywhere you think there may be a receptive audience."

Barbara




Post 4

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 5:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Barbara: Oh goodness! I didn't mean to beat you to the post - indeed, I didn't realise that was a post to which you were running!

Humblest apologies - does that mean you now won't be giving me a minute-by-minute account of your evening with Kirsten and Lauritz? :-/

As far as the book goes, I agree with every word of Barbara's review. This book is not just compulsory reading - every SOLOist who wants to change the culture now has an easy weapon within reach: use this book in any way you can! AS Barbara advises, "talk about it to one's friends, one's acquaintances, one's classmates, in letters to editors, in articles, in theses, everywhere you think there may be a receptive audience."





Post 5

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
""Reason," writes postmodernist Michel Foucault, 'is the language of madness.'"
i'm not going to defend everything foucault said or did, but this quote is taken out of context. the point was, if this quote is where I remember it being from, more about the idea of mental illness, and how the concept of rationality is a sort of conceptual prerequisite to come up with the label of "insane", than it was about flat out reason bashing.



Post 6

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Peter, you wrote:

"Humblest apologies - does that mean you now won't be giving me a minute-by-minute account of your evening with Kirsten and Lauritz? :-/"

Unless you've been calling yourself a mind reader, you needn't apologize -- and I'd love to talk abut my enchanted evening with Kirsten and Lauritz.

Barbara




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

On Foucault. When Stephen HIcks spoke before the West Virginia Philosophical Society I asked him during the Q & A to name his favorite postmodern philosopher and he named Foucault. Toward the end of his life he seem to return to "modern" ways, but I wouldn't bet the farm since I'm not an expert on Foucault. If interested you might check out THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO FOUCAULT, especially essays 7 and 8. In the latter he writes in agreement with Kant that Enlightenment is not the name of an epoch but rather our "exit from immaturity to maturity." Our willingness to "think for ourselves." "Sapere aude" (Dare to Know) as Kant wrote.

Enjoy

Fred



Post 8

Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"When Stephen HIcks spoke before the West Virginia Philosophical Society I asked him during the Q & A to name his favorite postmodern philosopher and he named Foucault."

I would have to agree with mr hicks. I have no patience for derrida, or some of the more recent postmodernists, but foucault uniquely seems much more intelligent and reasonable in his critiques, and the extensive use of historical documentation for his points helps also. reading about his ideas of power/knowledge or the panoptic society or such other ideas, one can't help but think that even if foucault took some of it off the deep end, there really is, at core, something to it.

and now I will just sit here and wait to get accused of being an evil whim worshipping subjectivist by people who have never read the man but automatically hate him.



Post 9

Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 2:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Robert Bisno, you wrote: "and now I will just sit here and wait to get accused of being an evil whim worshipping subjectivist by people who have never read the man but automatically hate him."

For the record: I haven't read Foucault and I don't hate him -- and even if I did, I wouldn't accuse you of anything but disagreeing with me.

Barbara




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just finished reading this book.  It's very enlightening.  The question of what could possibly drive people to postmodernism is explained pretty well.  Hick's analysis approaches it from several angles.  Every time he comes up with a good explanation of it, he stops and asks whether it really fits the data, or whether there's more to it.  He focuses on several convergent threads, and how each added something to the mix that made postmodernism possible.

In the process of explaining how it came about, he provides a very good understanding of the postmodern worldview itself.  By approaching it from different angles, he highlights different parts of it, and shows how they relate to the others.  It's full of insights and his methods are admirable.  Even when he has a great deductive explanation, he always goes back to the data.

Anyone interested in what's going on in the world of ideas should read this book.




Post 11

Friday, May 20, 2005 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I just need to hear something -comparative- about Hicks' book since I like to read primarily in areas where I know the least. I already know something about Heidegger, Rousseau, Foucault, Nietzsche, Derrida, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Kant, etc.

And I prefer to now read more about ideas that are true, having read a lot about the mistaken ideas which led us to where we are now. Some of the -earlier- pomo precursors were covered by Peikoff in his excellent "Modern Philosophy" course.

Could anyone who has both taken this course and read Hicks's book tell me how much of what he says goes beyond Peikoff's course? (And please if you have antipathy to Peikoff, don't let that influence your judgment.)

Thanks,

Phil

PS, I'm open to reading it if it's going to be "new" or useful, but I need a stronger reason than "Foucault and Derrida are more of the same stuff as the existentialists, Kant, Nietzsche and Rousseau. Only worse."



Post 12

Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’d read the book, Phil. There is some overlap but I found the review useful. Hicks has a more integrated narrative. Philosophical history is used to explain the present state of post-modern nihilism. By covering the last 40 years Hicks goes beyond the Peikoff lectures.

 

In an article I wrote, I’ve argued that postmodernism is an influence in contemporary politics. The assault on truth is now explicit and without a shred of guilt. I refer and review Stephen Hicks’ book to explain that this is no accident; what we are seeing is indeed a deliberate and open embrace of deception and lies.




Post 13

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From a few lectures and meetings Stephen Hicks strikes me as a genuine, down-to-earth fella. Rare qualities in a scholar. I look forward to reading this one.    



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.