12/2/21

I was hoping for a critique of postmodernism but this is really written to blame socialism in general and only manages to get to postmodernism at the end. Perhaps when it was written it was a interesting debate to have. Now when postmodernism is the dominant ideology and an real threat to free society it seems a bit sterile. It is also now very apparent that postmodernism has some very conservative aspects and people of both the left and right need to work together against this threat to freedom. ( )

A quick introduction to a long history of philosophical thought. Hicks' hypothesis is that postmodernism is the child of failed socialism, but what stuck with me was the introduction to the long tradition of philosophical thought that Hicks' sketched in broad but effective strokes, from late-18th-century counter-enlightenment culture to today's postmodernist thinkers.
Witnessing a modern philosopher craft a novel argument and to watch it take shape, based off older building blocks, isn't something you'd find in an intro-to-philo book. This helped seeing how these ideas fit into the bigger picture together, and could possibly be used to create new ideas or theories.
( )

A very ambitious book, largely well executed in my view. To be clear, this is explaining post-modernism primarily if 'explaining' means demolishing. Part of the challenge for many people reading this will be whether it fits their world view. If you believe socialism is a proven failure (to do otherwise Hicks states, would be a matter of faith) and you believe post-modernism is a corrupting and cynical use of language to undermine capitalist society then this book will provide with a fair degree of evidence for those positions. Personally, without considering myself to be a socialist, but with a European rather than North American view of socialism, I found the almost one-to-one mapping of the defence of socialism to post-modernism a leap too far. Maybe this is semantics (eg is socialism a far-left Marxist with totalitarianism attached or is it a caring welfare state with redistributive taxes within an otherwise capitalist system?), but maybe Stephen Hicks would consider that point immaterial.

This is a polemic, not a balanced essay on the subject, but anyone with an interest in politics and social justice should read and consider what Stephen Hicks has to say. ( )

This book is an excellent introduction to both the philosophical foundations of Postmodernism and the history of its battle with the Enlightenment outlook. The author analyzes the views of specific philosophers who provided the ideas that led to contemporary postmodern thinkers; including brief summaries of the views of each. Comparative charts are provided along the way that are helpful in assessing different views and changes in philosophy over time. He elucidates the links between the ideas of philosophers and makes connections; for example, he identifies the nexus between postmodern thinkers and leftism.
The book is structured with four chapters on intellectual history preceded by an introductory essay on the definition of Postmodernism, and followed by a concluding section that comments on the current state of affairs. While critical of the post-modern project, it is a thorough and fair presentation of Postmodernism from a pro-enlightenment individualist point of view. ( )