Aero's Hicks Article, Part 2

One thing I definitely notice is that you seem very preoccupied with McManus' choice of words and only rarely deign to adress the substance of his arguments.


Thomas Aquinas was the single most important commentator on Aristotle and one of the most influential figures in medieval Christian philosophy. He created the "proofs of the divine" that semi-rationalist Christians use to this very day. To create a definition of "medieval philosophy" that not only leaves out one of the most important medieval philosophers, but does not even mention him at any point, is a pretty glaring oversight on Hicks' part, given that he claims to be providing an introductory account of these topics.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/




When you're already attacking McManus for it, then why can't you stop it with the weasle words for once?

"philosophers", "frequently", "plenty of them", those are all unsupported accusations, and because you do not direct them at any particular figure and word them so vaguely it is impossible to find evidence for or against these claims. All you are doing here is unnecessarily espousing your irrational prejudices against philosophy in a thread that is supposed to be about rational refutation of another person's argument.



What is the central thread? Hicks' conspiracy theory that "postmodernists" want to destroy "truth" in order to usher us all into Marxism? Foucault wasn't a Marxist, and in fact took part in Solidarnosc and supported dissenters within the Soviet bloc. He had neither motive nor reason to work towards a rebirth of Marxism.

That's an unsupported claim with no evidence. You can do better than that.






He writes about medieval philosophy in his book, and even includes it in his vaunted charts.

In fact one of my critique of the book is that he claims to explain "postmodernism", but spends nearly two thirds of the book talking about the Enlightenment, Kant, and espousing his factually wrong ideas about pre-Enlightenment European philosophy at length.

And even with such a long start, he fails to make a single well-supported argument against his strawman version of post-1960s French philosophy.




Tu quoque.
Do you agree with my characterization of your claims as unsupported, overly vague, and impossible to either verify or falsify?

And in order to support his claim, he would have had to name which left wingers he is talking about, and come up with factually existing evidence for these beliefs.

Which he does not.

The only "left winger" he actually manages to cite correctly was a vocal opponent of socialist regimes, and the only revolution he was ever on the record of supporting was the reactionary clerical revolition of Iran.


Faced with a choice between doing some actual work as an academic and spouting bullshit, Hicks chose bullshit.


If you actually watched his video, McManus cites plenty of other "postmodernists" (that is, people who follow one or several positions espoused by one or several post-1960s French philosopher) who are social democrats, classical liberals, conservatives, or even outright right-wing nationalists.

The notion of "postmodernism" as a Marxist movement is simply not based in any sort of fact.

And your evidence that Hicks did sloppy research? So far, it seems to be the McManus article (which so far has its own shortcomings) and a critical article in mises.org. Well here is a quote from that article:

"Even if one quarrels with an occasional detail in Hicks’s account of the postmoderns, in broad outlines he is clearly right. He proceeds to ask an insightful question: what is the appeal of these irrational views to contemporary intellectuals? In response, he calls attention to a key aspect of contemporary history."

mises.org/library/explaining-postmodernism-skepticism-and-socialism-rousseau-foucault-stephen-r-c-hicks

Bob
[/quote]

Note that the review says that he "proceeds to ask" a question, even though he claims to "explain" it.



First of all, there is the fact that out of all the "postmodernists" he manages to produce one (1) attributable quote by a single one (1) post-modern philosopher, Michel Foucault. Then, in several chapters, he makes sweeping claims about "postmodernism" without being able to attribute them to a single actual "postmodernist", or even citing a single name. And on top of that, he fails to provide any sort of evidence for these sweeping claims, textual or otherwise. However, at several points, he cites people who are in fact vocal critics of "postmodernist" positions, and lumps them in with "postmodernism".

Yes, I know. I've read the book, you know?

As you say, he quotes left wingers - and none of these people are postmodern philosophers. (You know, the actual school of philosophy he claims to attack) You are making the same mistake as Hicks, and for the same reasons: You lump in every single leftist philosopher as "postmodernist" without looking at their philosophy and checking what their commonalities even are, or whether they fit your definition of "postmodernism".

Point taken.

I retain my position that Foucault is the only philosopher Hicks cites who could conceivably be called a "postmodernist" by Hicks' definition, and that Foucault was definitely not a communist or a Marxist, and in fact is on the record as a vocal critic both of communist regimes and of Marxist ideology.




Why would you think that? I am responding to points that I consider interesting and worthy of discussion. I have no interest in debating every minute detail, and I wouldn't have the patience for that, either.

What Hicks claims to be a Derrida quote is taken from a New York Review of Books article, and I could not verify whether it is a verbatim quote.

The one quote from Lyotard and Rorty respectively actually seem genuine.


He still doesn't appear to use them in support of any particular point about postmodernism, but instead scatters them throughout his texts with seemingly no rhyme or reason. The Rorty quote in particular is used in a completely baffling context to support of a point about Kant(? It really makes absolutely no sense there.)




You were a communist in the 1960s, weren't you? Does that mean you are a "postmodernist"?

Foucault actually quit the PCF in 1953, only three years after having joined at the urging of his friend and mentor Louis Althusser.

And in case you were wondering, Derrida never joined the PCF in the first place.