This book was recommended and talked about in the "Is Gender a social construct?" thread here, where you'll find an interesting discussion about postmodernism.
Having finished the book, I think it's really good and can I highly recommend it. It's basically a 'tour de force' through the development of Western philosophy and where it went astray. It also brings home the point that what's happening on the left (and also the reaction by the right) is by no means a coincidence or even something new - it's rather a pathological line of force that runs very deep and goes back to the Enlightenment and beyond.
He also brings in socialism and makes the case that postmodernism is in part a reaction to the obvious failure of Marxism - the only way out as a true Marxist believer is to deny that there are any facts and logic at all, otherwise the facts and logic would lead them to the conclusion they have to give up their treasured belief system.
The book is very easy to read and straight-forward - it manages to make its compelling case in a way that's accessible to everyone. However, I guess those who are not familiar with philosophy at all might still find it a bit difficult at times, but I guess you can't avoid this when discussing philosophy with its long tradition and terminology.
The criticism I have is related to this 'compelling argument': the author basically sees the philosophical development of the West as a fight between English and German Enlightenment philosophy - the Germans being the bad guys of course :) He makes it look as if Kant's epistemology 'poisoned' the pure Anglo philosophers with a skeptical view of our ability to experience truth via our senses - Kant said we are restricted by our a priori make-up of our minds. The author then draws a line from Kant to the post-modernists who preach nihilism, relativism etc.
I think it's not an unreasonable argument, because indeed such Kantian skepticism can be abused to justify nihilism and relativism. But Hicks makes it sound as if on the one corner, you have the noble, rational Enlightenment philosophers (like Locke and Mill) and on the other corner you have the religious, anti-rational fanatics (aka Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and all the other Germans) who paved the way for postmodernism. I think this is way too simplistic. Many of those German philosophers had very interesting things to say and their skepticism of 'pure reason' was quite on point, given what we now know about psychology, self-deception, how evolution shaped our perception etc. Also, the religious/theological component can't just be dismissed so easily; ironically, this is another reason why postmodernism is so ugly and destructive - its total rejection of any theological truth. Here, the author apparently falls into the trap that many of those worshiping the Enlightenment today fall: the emphasis on the individual absolutely needs to go hand in hand with the divine and the potential of the individual to act according to its own 'divine spark' so to speak. Otherwise, you end up with individualistic nihilism where your 'will' aka. whims reign supreme - exactly what we're seeing in the West today.
Nonetheless, the way Hicks describes this 'battle' makes it easy to follow and remember the various philosophical lines of force, and he sure has a point here. I think he's done a great job laying out some of the philosophical battle grounds that are still highly relevant today. Reading this book makes one familiar with the nonsensical arguments and ideology of the postmodernists and can immunize us against their twisted assaults on our minds and souls.
Highly recommended!
Having finished the book, I think it's really good and can I highly recommend it. It's basically a 'tour de force' through the development of Western philosophy and where it went astray. It also brings home the point that what's happening on the left (and also the reaction by the right) is by no means a coincidence or even something new - it's rather a pathological line of force that runs very deep and goes back to the Enlightenment and beyond.
He also brings in socialism and makes the case that postmodernism is in part a reaction to the obvious failure of Marxism - the only way out as a true Marxist believer is to deny that there are any facts and logic at all, otherwise the facts and logic would lead them to the conclusion they have to give up their treasured belief system.
The book is very easy to read and straight-forward - it manages to make its compelling case in a way that's accessible to everyone. However, I guess those who are not familiar with philosophy at all might still find it a bit difficult at times, but I guess you can't avoid this when discussing philosophy with its long tradition and terminology.
The criticism I have is related to this 'compelling argument': the author basically sees the philosophical development of the West as a fight between English and German Enlightenment philosophy - the Germans being the bad guys of course :) He makes it look as if Kant's epistemology 'poisoned' the pure Anglo philosophers with a skeptical view of our ability to experience truth via our senses - Kant said we are restricted by our a priori make-up of our minds. The author then draws a line from Kant to the post-modernists who preach nihilism, relativism etc.
I think it's not an unreasonable argument, because indeed such Kantian skepticism can be abused to justify nihilism and relativism. But Hicks makes it sound as if on the one corner, you have the noble, rational Enlightenment philosophers (like Locke and Mill) and on the other corner you have the religious, anti-rational fanatics (aka Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and all the other Germans) who paved the way for postmodernism. I think this is way too simplistic. Many of those German philosophers had very interesting things to say and their skepticism of 'pure reason' was quite on point, given what we now know about psychology, self-deception, how evolution shaped our perception etc. Also, the religious/theological component can't just be dismissed so easily; ironically, this is another reason why postmodernism is so ugly and destructive - its total rejection of any theological truth. Here, the author apparently falls into the trap that many of those worshiping the Enlightenment today fall: the emphasis on the individual absolutely needs to go hand in hand with the divine and the potential of the individual to act according to its own 'divine spark' so to speak. Otherwise, you end up with individualistic nihilism where your 'will' aka. whims reign supreme - exactly what we're seeing in the West today.
Nonetheless, the way Hicks describes this 'battle' makes it easy to follow and remember the various philosophical lines of force, and he sure has a point here. I think he's done a great job laying out some of the philosophical battle grounds that are still highly relevant today. Reading this book makes one familiar with the nonsensical arguments and ideology of the postmodernists and can immunize us against their twisted assaults on our minds and souls.
Highly recommended!
