Explaining Postmodernism

What Hacker News says

1. smitty1eJun 2020
   For a concise, clear summary, one cannot recommend Hicks enough:

   https://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-S...

   thread
2. sebastianconcptSep 2019
   * Full time remote jobs

   * Conspicuous Signalling Theory

   * The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn

   * Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen R. C. Hicks

   * The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard e Hans-Hermann Hoppe

   * The Red Pill

   * How a Cultural War works and who is waging it against Western Civilization

   * Lifting & dieting. The importance of muscle mass for everything in life

   * How to cook tasty meals that fits an intense fitness lifestyle

   * How hypergamy works (alpha seeds / beta needs)

   Show morethread
3. FabHKAug 2019
   FWIW, I don't think very formal methods are the crux of the matter (at least for the incipient stages of a scientific field).

   Having said that, postmodernism is (in my view) totally misguided. The obfuscated language is intentional, as among its epistemological assumptions is that reason is not only limited, but has only limited access to reality (well, or creates reality), and at any rate is insufficient.

   Recommended readings:

   * The Sokal Hoax [1]

   * Intellectual Impostors by Bricmont and Sokal (Fashionable Nonsense in the US) [2] for an expansion on the Sokal Hoax, and many examples on pretentious and preposterous abuse of scientific terminology by postmodern philosophers

   * Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism From Rousseau to Foucault by Hicks [3] on the history of postmodernism, arising from counter-enlightenment philosophy all the way from Rousseau via the insufferable German idealists, including Hegel with his dialectical reasoning, which supported both fascism and Marxism.

   Postmodernists often take specific reasonable criticism of or problems with science or realism, and then blow them up and generalise them unjustifiably. It is worth taking some of the criticism to heart, but the postmodernists aren't even the ones formulating those problems in the most cogent way. So, my advice would be to waste some, but not too much time on postmodernism.

   [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

   [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

   [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-098325...

   Show morethread
4. mindcrashJan 2018
   > I think people like him might very well help keep disgruntled young men away from the extreme right, by offering a moderate alternative.

   I hope he does the same thing with people who are flirting with the extreme left. I hope many of them follow his advice and are smart enough to read and understand The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks.

   We have serious problems in Western society, but the extreme "solutions" suggested by both of these parties will result in a complete and utter disaster for everyone. Even worse, we are even already seeing some of the effects of some of these "solutions" in action.

   Show morethread
5. alexryanSep 2017
   > Surely you must agree that any kind of unconscious bias (or conscious, for that matter) is undesirable? How can an organization claim to be a meritocracy if members of marginalized groups are treated unfairly compared to members of the majority group?

   Everybody has biases. SJWs have biases as well. James Damore pointed out some of them and he got slandered, shamed, death threats, robbed of his livelihood and his future ability to provide for his family. After that experience, I think its reasonable to conclude that SJWs are not acting in good faith when it comes to having an open discussion about biases.

   Furthermore, there is ZERO scientific evidence for unconscious bias and microaggressions against "marginalized groups".

   I cite the research of Psychology professor Scott Lilienfeld of Emory University: “Microaggressions: Strong Claims, Inadequate Evidence.”

   Re: > The ideology is just marxism with the white male as the new villain instead of the bourgeoisie.

   While it may be true that SJWs are not fully aware of the historical origins of their ideology, it is a fact that postmodernism was borne when the french intellectuals (marxists) confronted with the horrors of communism chose to reformulate their philosophy to concentrate on identity politics instead of class war. The following book provides a good history of this:

   Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Expanded Edition) by Stephen R. C. Hicks

   Show morethread
6. earwaxauditorDec 2020
   David Hume is an empiricist. Noam Chomsky is more of rationalist.

   LessWrong-rationalism is just crackpottery.

   This brings to mind a review of Stephen Hicks “Explaining Postmodernism”. In the book he contrasts postmodernism with objectivism: postmodernists are irrational while objectivists are rational. And once you look long enough at the comparison tables you realize that there is no philosophy there; it’s just “bad thing” v.s. “good thing”.

   Kind of like “rationalism”, that obvious good thing. Who wouldn’t want to be rational? What’s our philosophy? Uh, to be rational? To be for good things and against bad things?

   Hence your indignation at putting pseudo in front of that word: how could one possibly object to something called rationalism? Hello, it’s in the name—rationalism! It’s about being rational. What more do you want, Jack?

   “Per se”...

   And nice touch with the but-religion-though. That was a zinger.

   Show morethread