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.
Explaining Postmodernism
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
First Sentence
By most accounts we have entered a new intellectual age. Read the first page
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
By most accounts we have entered a new intellectual age. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
In this engrossing work, the author traces the history of the betrayal of the Enlightenment from which Modernism arose to give us tolerance, democracy, human rights, individualism and free enterprise. This is the legacy of, amongst others, Bacon, Locke, Descartes, Smith, Hobbes, Spinoza and Galileo. For all its faults - like the idea that pure reason could replace religion - it still succeeded in providing the West with a blueprint for a humane and decent society.
The assault on truth and reason in the latter half of the 20th century was led by people like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty. The author chronicles the long march of this mindset from Jean Jacques Rousseau who launched the counter-enlightenment, through Kant (although it might not have been his intention), Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and above all the charlatan Heidegger.
Postmodernism is anti-reason, subjective and nihilistic, denying the possibility of truth, reality and meaning. Hicks views postmodernism as a smorgasbord of reactions to Kant's division of the world into phenomena and noumena. Although Kant was trying to shield religion from scientific skepticism, this divide opened the door to the demons of nihilism.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this mindset has taken an even more disturbing turn. Its adherents had to either give up the utopian collectivist dream or deny reality. They chose the latter. In other words, postmodernism is the result of using a skeptical epistemology to justify the leap of faith that is required to continue believing in the failed god of socialism. The unhinged hatred of the West in general, and the USA, Israel and traditional religion in particular, is the latest manifestation of the malignancy.
Collectivism was a disastrous failure both empirically and theoretically, but because the idea makes the tenured termites feel good, it can now only be justified by denying reality. Hicks poses the quesion, If there is no right or wrong, then why are all the postmodernists committed leftists? It is because they hate Western values and use their meaningless slogans as a means to pursue power.
And it has gotten worse in its irrationality, incoherence and contradictions. As a fusion of leftist politics and selective skepticism, postmodernism now boldly proclaims falsehood without even trying to hide it. If logic and objective fact do not exist, why the slavish adherence to political correctness? Ultimately, it is all about the preferences of power to these intellectual traitors.
One can also ask why Europe, infested with relativism and the multiculti cult, prides itself on its Anti-Americanism and criticism of Israel, but is too cowardly to protect its own artists from the onslaught of radical Islamism. This continent had better wake up because its current false religion of postmodernist secularism will be no match for what it harbours in its midst.
Explaining Postmodernism is a lucid examination of the pathologies of leftist thought and its roots. For an illuminating look at leftist hate, I recommend Unhinged by Michelle Malkin. Other informative books on postmodernism include Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont and The Illusion Of Postmodernism by Terry Eagleton. A cure for this intellectual cancer may be found, inter alia, in the work of the great Michael Polanyi, in a book like Science, Faith and Society.
The assault on truth and reason in the latter half of the 20th century was led by people like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty. The author chronicles the long march of this mindset from Jean Jacques Rousseau who launched the counter-enlightenment, through Kant (although it might not have been his intention), Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and above all the charlatan Heidegger.
Postmodernism is anti-reason, subjective and nihilistic, denying the possibility of truth, reality and meaning. Hicks views postmodernism as a smorgasbord of reactions to Kant's division of the world into phenomena and noumena. Although Kant was trying to shield religion from scientific skepticism, this divide opened the door to the demons of nihilism.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this mindset has taken an even more disturbing turn. Its adherents had to either give up the utopian collectivist dream or deny reality. They chose the latter. In other words, postmodernism is the result of using a skeptical epistemology to justify the leap of faith that is required to continue believing in the failed god of socialism. The unhinged hatred of the West in general, and the USA, Israel and traditional religion in particular, is the latest manifestation of the malignancy.
Collectivism was a disastrous failure both empirically and theoretically, but because the idea makes the tenured termites feel good, it can now only be justified by denying reality. Hicks poses the quesion, If there is no right or wrong, then why are all the postmodernists committed leftists? It is because they hate Western values and use their meaningless slogans as a means to pursue power.
And it has gotten worse in its irrationality, incoherence and contradictions. As a fusion of leftist politics and selective skepticism, postmodernism now boldly proclaims falsehood without even trying to hide it. If logic and objective fact do not exist, why the slavish adherence to political correctness? Ultimately, it is all about the preferences of power to these intellectual traitors.
One can also ask why Europe, infested with relativism and the multiculti cult, prides itself on its Anti-Americanism and criticism of Israel, but is too cowardly to protect its own artists from the onslaught of radical Islamism. This continent had better wake up because its current false religion of postmodernist secularism will be no match for what it harbours in its midst.
Explaining Postmodernism is a lucid examination of the pathologies of leftist thought and its roots. For an illuminating look at leftist hate, I recommend Unhinged by Michelle Malkin. Other informative books on postmodernism include Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont and The Illusion Of Postmodernism by Terry Eagleton. A cure for this intellectual cancer may be found, inter alia, in the work of the great Michael Polanyi, in a book like Science, Faith and Society.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
4.4 out of 5 stars
44 reviews
97 of 103 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
UNMASKING POSTMODERNISM
Oct 17 2006
By F. Carr
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
This book isn't an introduction to postmodernism (PM). There are several introductions to PM on Amazon if that's what you want. Rather, its task could be described as turning some of the techniques of academic PM on its founders - Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, & Co. The title could have been "Unmasking Postmodernism" because Hicks does so with devastating effect.
I have read several hundred books on philosophy from Plato to the present and I cannot think of one that I consider to have been more clearly written than this. The exposition is admirably jargon-free and straightforward, although some terms might be unfamiliar to some folks. This is the only book in many years that I began re-reading and marking up as soon as I had finished reading it the first time - I think it's that good.
It's important to distinguish between PM in the arts, which is largely an aesthetic trend, and academic PM, which exists almost exclusively in some humanities departments in the universities and identifies with particular epistemological and linguistic assumptions. This book is concerned with the latter group and Hicks provides a well documented case for the following historical sequence:
1) Leftist socialists had traditionally believed that reason and facts would show the superiority of socialism - theoretically, morally, and economically.
2) Academic PM's creators were all leftist socialists around the time that leftist socialism was failing - theoretically, morally, and economically (1950s on).
3) The reaction of leftist academic socialists to this wasn't to accept that they had been wrong. Instead, they availed themselves of recent developments in epistemology and linguistics as a pretext for dismissing reason and facts.
4) They then proceeded to impose leftist socialism on students from behind this mask.
This reaction parallels the Counter Enlightenment movements beginning over 200 years ago that were trying to save room for faith against the advance of science.
I was particularly interested to see Hicks point out the similarities between the tactics of creationists (anti-evolutionists) and PMs. I've been engaged in a running debate in print with a group of creationists for over a year and the similarities are striking and revealing. Academic PM definitely has a cult aspect to it; the movie "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" comes to mind. American philosopher John Searle once remarked that French PM philosopher Jacques Derrida's work is the kind of stuff that gives bulls**t a bad name.
Some people will say that Hicks is a Randist and that he's merely criticizing PM from that perspective without understanding it. That's a knee-jerk PM tactic - if you disagree with us, you don't understand us. I'm not a Randist, nor am I particularly sympathetic to Rand, yet I didn't feel a Randist presence in the text other than to the extent that Randists still think reason has value and that all opinions are not created equal.
Hicks ends appropriately by telling us that because the Enlightenment project remains unfinished the PMs will be able to carry on as though that project has failed. It could be that the final refutation of academic PM will entail a significant advance in the completion of the Enlightenment project, although it will almost certainly be an updated conception of that project.
There is a lot more value in this book than what I'm reporting here, including a wonderfully illuminating account of the philosophical trends that led to PM and an inventory of the rhetorical tactics used by PMs, so I strongly recommend getting it in your hands ASAP.
I have read several hundred books on philosophy from Plato to the present and I cannot think of one that I consider to have been more clearly written than this. The exposition is admirably jargon-free and straightforward, although some terms might be unfamiliar to some folks. This is the only book in many years that I began re-reading and marking up as soon as I had finished reading it the first time - I think it's that good.
It's important to distinguish between PM in the arts, which is largely an aesthetic trend, and academic PM, which exists almost exclusively in some humanities departments in the universities and identifies with particular epistemological and linguistic assumptions. This book is concerned with the latter group and Hicks provides a well documented case for the following historical sequence:
1) Leftist socialists had traditionally believed that reason and facts would show the superiority of socialism - theoretically, morally, and economically.
2) Academic PM's creators were all leftist socialists around the time that leftist socialism was failing - theoretically, morally, and economically (1950s on).
3) The reaction of leftist academic socialists to this wasn't to accept that they had been wrong. Instead, they availed themselves of recent developments in epistemology and linguistics as a pretext for dismissing reason and facts.
4) They then proceeded to impose leftist socialism on students from behind this mask.
This reaction parallels the Counter Enlightenment movements beginning over 200 years ago that were trying to save room for faith against the advance of science.
I was particularly interested to see Hicks point out the similarities between the tactics of creationists (anti-evolutionists) and PMs. I've been engaged in a running debate in print with a group of creationists for over a year and the similarities are striking and revealing. Academic PM definitely has a cult aspect to it; the movie "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" comes to mind. American philosopher John Searle once remarked that French PM philosopher Jacques Derrida's work is the kind of stuff that gives bulls**t a bad name.
Some people will say that Hicks is a Randist and that he's merely criticizing PM from that perspective without understanding it. That's a knee-jerk PM tactic - if you disagree with us, you don't understand us. I'm not a Randist, nor am I particularly sympathetic to Rand, yet I didn't feel a Randist presence in the text other than to the extent that Randists still think reason has value and that all opinions are not created equal.
Hicks ends appropriately by telling us that because the Enlightenment project remains unfinished the PMs will be able to carry on as though that project has failed. It could be that the final refutation of academic PM will entail a significant advance in the completion of the Enlightenment project, although it will almost certainly be an updated conception of that project.
There is a lot more value in this book than what I'm reporting here, including a wonderfully illuminating account of the philosophical trends that led to PM and an inventory of the rhetorical tactics used by PMs, so I strongly recommend getting it in your hands ASAP.
40 of 44 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars
Pretty good... for an objectivist
Nov 13 2006
By G. Boggs
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Amazon Verified Purchase
I'm not a philosopher, I'm a retired scientist. So I'm probably not the best reviewer for this book. However, I did enjoy it. That in itself is unusual when I read philosophy.
In all fairness, I suspect this book probably would not be considered to be an "academic level" philosophy book, at least for the advanced undergraduate philosophy major. But it does take one through a history of philosophical thinking from the Enlightenment to the postmodern present.
I had done some prior reading about postmodernism. I enjoy reading about the subject for the same reason I like going to public aquariums - the denizens are so strange and alien that one is astonished that such odd creatures exist at all. Of course, behind the scenes in the aquarium are vast engineered systems to provide anm environment that will support the inhabitants. For the postmodernists, universities serve as that vast engineered system. This book explains why the postmodernists need such a system to survive in a world that doesn't focus on pickle slices, hot meat and trans-fats.
The book also does a good job of explaining in more-or-less plain English the vacuity of postmodern thought. If you aren't impressed and awed by the kind of self-congratulatory dense prose one often gets from philosophical writers, and you want a readable overview of the development and blossoming of dead-end thinking, this is the book for you. If you're a real philosopher, though, I'm sure you'll find it so accessible as to be beneath contempt. And if you're a postmodernist, stay away at all costs. It will be dangerous reading for you. Your trope might trip.
In all fairness, I suspect this book probably would not be considered to be an "academic level" philosophy book, at least for the advanced undergraduate philosophy major. But it does take one through a history of philosophical thinking from the Enlightenment to the postmodern present.
I had done some prior reading about postmodernism. I enjoy reading about the subject for the same reason I like going to public aquariums - the denizens are so strange and alien that one is astonished that such odd creatures exist at all. Of course, behind the scenes in the aquarium are vast engineered systems to provide anm environment that will support the inhabitants. For the postmodernists, universities serve as that vast engineered system. This book explains why the postmodernists need such a system to survive in a world that doesn't focus on pickle slices, hot meat and trans-fats.
The book also does a good job of explaining in more-or-less plain English the vacuity of postmodern thought. If you aren't impressed and awed by the kind of self-congratulatory dense prose one often gets from philosophical writers, and you want a readable overview of the development and blossoming of dead-end thinking, this is the book for you. If you're a real philosopher, though, I'm sure you'll find it so accessible as to be beneath contempt. And if you're a postmodernist, stay away at all costs. It will be dangerous reading for you. Your trope might trip.
47 of 53 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
This is how philosophy should be written!
Jun 4 2005
By Stanislav Rozenfeld
- Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback
Just finished reading this book. It took me about a week of very leisurely reading. The book is about 200 pages. This is how philosophy should be written, brief and to the point. People like me do not have a lot of time on our hands to pour through thick philosophical tomes hoping to discover one grain of wisdom in a sea of verbiage. What makes this book special is that every page, every word counts. This is not some superficial popularization, but a serious book filled with important ideas and serious implication for the modern world.
This is intellectual history written like a novel, and it reads like a novel. It's a dark novel, unfortunately, but there is reason for hope. The story it tells is of how postmodernism evolved from its dual roots of socialist utopianism and counter-enlightenment philosophy to become the dominant intellectual force in today's universities.
Beyond being just an intellectual history, the book represents a call to action for all those who value their Enlightenment heritage to articulate and defend the premises upon which the Enlightenment was built, but which were never fully articulated. In this book, Enlightenment doesn't remain some historical abstraction, but a great movement that has brought us individualism, science, technology, capitalism and all the fruits of the progress in all these fields. It's something that's worth defending, and I hope this book is read widely enough to make an impact in that direction.
This is intellectual history written like a novel, and it reads like a novel. It's a dark novel, unfortunately, but there is reason for hope. The story it tells is of how postmodernism evolved from its dual roots of socialist utopianism and counter-enlightenment philosophy to become the dominant intellectual force in today's universities.
Beyond being just an intellectual history, the book represents a call to action for all those who value their Enlightenment heritage to articulate and defend the premises upon which the Enlightenment was built, but which were never fully articulated. In this book, Enlightenment doesn't remain some historical abstraction, but a great movement that has brought us individualism, science, technology, capitalism and all the fruits of the progress in all these fields. It's something that's worth defending, and I hope this book is read widely enough to make an impact in that direction.
›
Go to Amazon.com to see all 44 reviews
4.4 out of 5 stars
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Feedback
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
