I have just spent some time viewing Dr. Hicks teachings of philosophy and what I have learned from these lectures was probably the most enlightening lectures that I have ever heard. The following video is but the first of this series of lectures. It is a series of lectures explaining the philosophy of Post- modernism. The most significant understanding I got from these lectures is the fact I hear these same arguments used and see them being utilized in the politics of today's world.
The one significant conclusion that I have come to is the idea of what a liberal sees himself as being identified and what a conservative sees himself as being identified. Both sees themselves in the mode of the founding fathers thus see the opposition in light of this perception of themselves. But in order to understand this we must first identify the fact that we live in the age of the philosophy of modernism or as it is more commonly thought of as living in a modern world as ushered in by the enlightenment era or the age of reason. And our nation is a foundational example of this new train of thought.
This then would identify the time prior to this age as the age of premodernism or the premodern world with any age after this as being the age of post-modernism or the post-modern world. The liberal sees himself in the mode of the founding fathers who were the innovators of the modern world movement in that the liberal today is the innovators of the post- modern movement. This contrast with the conservative who is attempting to conserve the modern world movement as the founding fathers ushered in.
In closing I can only say that I suggest that you should sit thru the whole series of videos and see how his lectures are being played out in this modern world and understand from a philosophical point of view what the conflicts of political viewpoints are. If you listen closely you'll hear the arguments of liberalism as they now are presented as well as being instituted in this society.
And you will understand why the liberal mindset is so critical of the way of life we have in this nation also. You will also understand how Marxism plays a part in this mindframe as well. I believe you will find that the time spent watching as well as listening to these lectures will be time well worth it. I know I did. What say you?
The rest of the lectures can be found here, Dr. Hicks
Reports: Israel Carries Out Limited Counterattack On Iran
37 minutes ago
12 comments:
Another interesting take on the 'founding fathers'
vis a vis intellectualism & elitism here ..
and how would you differentiate the the difference between the two words, BB?
Standard definitions-
Intellectual:
..a person of superior intellect.
..a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
..an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
elite:
..A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status:
The best or most skilled members of a group.
We might posit that some
may be considered as both, some as intellectual but not elite, some as elite
but not intellectual, etc.
(Just an outside opinion, since I belong to none of
these groups!)
those are the defintions i would use but it seems as if they are used now days as a demeaning terms rather than as a valued descriptions of attributes especially the terms intellectualism and elitism as opposed to the terms intellectual and elite.
that was why i asked you for your understanding of the terms. i guess that shows that i am not one of them either.
Yes.."demeaning terms'..just about any noun these days is used as a perjorative by one group or another. Welcome to the New Age...:(
new age, mmm, would that be another term to describe "post-modernism? :)
Post-modernism?
Beats me-heard of postmodern art and literature, but not famliliar with either genre. Tell ya what though, Griper-post modern
is one of those silly terms like 'pre-ancient'.
More or less..:)
he smiles, that is curious, BB. i say that because that is what this post was all about, postmodernism.
and according to Dr. Hicks, as a liberal or progressive you are a follower of the philosophy, tho from the sounds of it you are a follower of it unknowingly. :)
from my understanding it was postmodernism that gave us the concept that truth is relative instead of ojective as advocated by modernism.
"and according to Dr. Hicks, as a liberal or progressive you are a follower of the philosophy, tho from the sounds of it you are a follower of it unknowingly." Yep, he got me..liberal, progressive..
'post-modern' is a construct, we are modern, how can we possibly be
post? Perhaps one of
Dr. Hicks 'relative' truths? Relative truth
is things like 'I believe in a triune God', 'There is no God, but Allah'.
'Volkswagens are better than Renaults' etc.
Which naturally enough brings us back to the
pre-ancient....and Pontius
Pilate!
BB,
all philosophy, especially political philosophy is a construct until that philosophy is fully implimented.
but in order for it to be implimented it has to be a philosophy worthy of a belief that it is deserving of being implimented.
and that is what differentiates the different political parties. each hold to a philosophy that their followers feel deserve to be implimented in a society.
those who adhere to the philosophy of postmodernism hold to the belief that modernism has run its course and has not fulfilled its promises thus it is time for change.
from what i gather, the terms are more indicative of a world viewpoint philosophy of which there are sub-topics under it, political philosophy being but one of these sub-topics.
the age of enlightenment was a time when philosophers presented the world in an entirely new light than the viewpoint of the world as accepted at the time. and it was men like the founding fathers that implimented this new viewpoint in regards to politics.
Griper, how you been, dude!!
not bad, professor. just trying to compete with you and Reb here. :)
Post a Comment