Posted on | November 30, 2011 | 9 Comments
The stunning conclusion.
The Four Whore’s Men of the Apocalypse
If there was any redeeming value in the thought of their predecessors, then
scuttled it. God save their souls, and damn their ‘ideas’. These chaps have done Western civilization no favors whatsoever. Let their ideas begone, and may they take Chomsky’s noise with them.
The kind of intellectual bombs they lob (from Hicks, 184):
1. On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, Postmodernism tells it like it really is.
Or, if I deny absolute zero, how can I tell you whether it is a cold day in your city?
2. On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad.
This statement is more an appeal to shame than a serious argument, in the absence of historical context. Theologically, one can argue an equivalence of all humans in the eyes of God. But that’s a moral point, and off the table here.
3. Values are subjective–but sexism and racism are really evil.
Sexism and racism are both DNA-based decision making.
Laundering the evil through Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Officers has the effect of giving some jobs to people who seem to be solutions in search of problems a lot of the time.
While the election of a black President remains good thing, Affirmative Action played a role in producing the least qualified President in American history.
4. Technology is bad and destructive–and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others.
Technology is neither good nor evil. However, the concept of ‘fair’, like temperature, requires some knowledge of an absolute to evaluate, which these knuckledraggers rejected back at point #1. Describe the objective, non-emotional standard, so that the charge of unfairness can be evaluated justly.
5. Tolerance is good and dominance is bad–but when Postmodernists come to power, policital correctness follows.
Tolerance of stylistic differences is one thing. Tolerance of evil is another, as a glance at Penn State reveals.
Tolerance of evil becomes complacency, and gradual internalization. The story of Lot is not a classic one without reason.
An antidote to political correctness is forgiveness:
|Postmodernist Accuser:||You are a racist because you did not vote for Candidate X.|
|Reasonable Person:||I forgive you for accusing me falsely of things that are not on my heart, but may be on yours.|
Note that, while not going on the offensive, the Person has both rejected Accuser’s premise and returned the accusation in a non-definite way. Restated, the Postmodernist understands that if he is successful in drawing you into his argument, he has won.
There is a common patter nere: Subjectivism and relativism in one breath, dogmatic absolutism in the next. Postmodernists are well awar 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–“These are merely Aristotalian logical contradictions”–but it is one thing to say that and quite another to sustain Hegelian contradictions psychologically. (Hicks, 184)
Or, we can use the style of argumentation as indicator that the speaker is an abject fool, and simply ignore the swine.
Going Postal on Postodernism
Showing that a movement leads to nihilsm is an important part of understanding it, as is shoing how a failing and nihilstic movement can still be dangerous. Tracing postmodernism’s roots back to Rousseau, Kant and Marx explains how all of its elements came to be woven together. Yet identifying postmoderism’s roots and connecting them to contemporary bad consequenses does not refute postmodernism.
What is still needed is a refutation of those histoical premises, and an identification and defense of the alternatives to them. (Hicks, 201)
Being afraid of Postmodernism is like being afraid of the dark. We must firmly oppose this systemic falsehood, or be consumed by it.
Overall, I thought Explaining Postmodernism was an essential read. One point to make as an aside, which is way off topic for the book, is that the anti-Enlightenment and political bent of Postmodernism explains the Left’s creepy non-alliance with radical Islam. Tolerating Jihad and Terrorism works as both a Hegelian contradiction and a club to wield against the Enlightenment.
Thanks for nothing, you Postmodern creeps.