Curious academic fads: Multiculturalism, postcolonialism, and cultural relativism

“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture – and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”

– Thomas Sowell, economist

The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names …

The fads of twenty-first-century philosophy may be almost as bad as their names. Many a bad idea has been made to sound better, by simply throwing “-ism” onto the end of a good buzzword. Although I find most postmodern writing to be intolerably bad, I should concede that by the simple addition of an “-ism,” some of their ideas can be made to sound deep and intellectual. The words with several syllables seem to conceal a certain kind of emptiness in their ideas, with the quality of the words seldom matching their intimidating quantity. But the influence of these ideas is far too prevalent for them to just be dismissed out of hand. It has been said that nutty ideas in academia will soon find their way into the broader society, about five years after their appearance in the ivory tower. Thus, the various offshoots of postmodernism have gained a foothold in everyday life far beyond their academic origins. I plan to deal with postmodernism proper (however one defines it) in another post. Thus, I will not attempt to deal with the original postmodern ideas in this post. Rather, I will here be undertaking to cover certain offshoots of postmodernism, such as multiculturalism and postcolonialism. It seems correct to identify these as offshoots of postmodernism. I will also talk somewhat here about moral relativism and cultural relativism, and how they fit into this broader postmodern picture.

Africans serving in the armies of European colonial powers – German East Africa, circa 1906

How psychology became a separate discipline

Disclaimer: I am writing here as a philosopher and as a historian, not as a psychologist. That is, I freely admit that I am not an “expert” in psychology, although I do have some minimal exposure to the subject. My intent here is only to show how psychology fits into the broader history of philosophy, by talking about how psychology became a separate discipline in the last two centuries.

Psychology has long been one of the most popular majors in the United States. By some measurements, it is second only to business in its popularity among college students. And it’s easy to see why the subject is so popular. It has a strong human interest element, and helps you to understand all kinds of human behavior. Classes focused on psychological disorders are often so popular that there are waitlists to get into them. Many want to enter the mental health professions, and use their training to help people in the most personal way. And it has long drawn students interested in the scientific side of things, who want to do research – or, at least, to benefit from the prior research of others. But psychology as we know it has only been around since 1879, when Wilhelm Wundt’s Laboratory was founded in Leipzig. And the discipline has many predecessors from back in antiquity, in various attempts to make a distinction between the mind and the body.

Wilhelm Wundt

Why you should be concerned about postmodernism

I have long had a fair number of friends who identify as “Marxist” or “socialist.” But I freely admit that relatively few of my friends have described themselves to me as “postmodern” or “postmodernist.” Chances are that your experience is much the same. That is, you probably don’t know too many people who identify themselves as “postmodern” or “postmodernist.” But, if we undertake to define what “postmodernism” is, we may find that we have a fair number of friends who fit this description. We may find that postmodern ideas underlie many other belief systems – from transgender ideology and identity politics, to feminism and critical race theory. We may thus find that a fair number of our friends are influenced, in one way or another, by various postmodern ideas. And, if we take the trouble to examine these ideas carefully, we may see that they cannot stand up to serious intellectual scrutiny. Postmodernism is (and remains) intellectually bankrupt. Thus, it may be worth the time to define this philosophy, then to gauge its prevalence, and finally to take the trouble to debunk it. Perhaps, then, we will be better able to arrive at philosophical truth.

Richard Rorty, postmodern philosopher

Postmodernists seem to misunderstand the natural sciences

“Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ‘eternal’ physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ‘objective’ procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.”

– Alan Sokal’s “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity” (1996) – later revealed by the author to be a hoax, which he used to demonstrate how academic journals that lack peer review can allow complete nonsense like this to slip by unnoticed

Disclosure: I lack training in the natural sciences (but, then, so do most postmodernists)

Postmodern ideas have now gained a foothold in the humanities and social sciences. For example, these views seem to be particularly popular among professors of literature and philosophy. Many of them argue that all truth is both relative and subjective – a doctrine known as “relativism.” Some of them have even argued that morality is relative, to either the individual or the broader culture – a better subject for two other posts. (To be released later on.) Postmodernists are also skeptical of what they call “meta-narratives,” or grand narratives about the larger world. And, in the context of the natural sciences, they believe that the natural sciences support their relativist view of things. They believe that mathematics and physics both deny the possibility of a true knowledge of nature. They cite a number of math and science ideas (four in particular) to support these strange interpretations. But it seems that they have grossly misunderstood these ideas, which do not actually make the claims that the postmodernists attribute to them. Thus, it might be helpful to set the record straight, and show what the sciences actually say about relative truth and the theory of knowledge. I should acknowledge that, like my current targets, I admittedly lack training in the natural sciences or higher mathematics myself. I freely admit this up-front. But, then, most of my postmodern targets seem to lack training in these subjects, too – virtually all of them, it seems. Thus, any criticisms on this score would have to go both ways, if true fairness is to be observed.

Jean Baudrillard, postmodern philosopher and sociologist

Struggle over the Marxist heritage: The battle for the ivory tower

Karl Marx attacked other socialist and communist schools in “The Communist Manifesto”

The debate over the Marxist heritage is at least as old as Marxism itself. In the nineteenth century, for example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published a brief work called “The Communist Manifesto.” This remains one of the most influential tracts ever written on economic theory. In that same century, they also published a three-volume work called “Das Kapital.” Some would argue that this is the most talked-about book in the social sciences – or, at least, the work that’s most frequently cited in academic journals of the social sciences. These nineteenth-century works are thus among the most influential books in human history. But Karl Marx debated with others in the budding socialist and communist movements, even attacking many of them in “The Communist Manifesto.” For example, “The Communist Manifesto” contains specific attacks on “reactionary socialism” – including “feudal socialism,” “petty-bourgeois socialism,” and “German, or ‘true,’ socialism” (as it was then called). He also attacks “conservative, or bourgeois, socialism,” although he has more mixed feelings about “critical-utopian socialism and communism” – as he states in the work itself. (Source: Chapter III, Section 3) Thus, the debate over socialism and communism goes back at least as far as the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, it still continues in full force today. Thus, this post will give a brief overview of the debates within the Marxist community, in the years since Marx’s death at age 64. I will have to skip over the original words of Marx himself, since I cover them elsewhere. Therefore, this will include a special focus on both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and the developments in Marxist thinking since the twentieth-century Russian Revolution.

Karl Kautsky

A review of “Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead” (audiobook)

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead once collaborated on a book. It was a three-volume work entitled “Principia Mathematica” – not to be confused with the similarly-named work by Isaac Newton. Both Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead were mathematicians, as well as philosophers. They had a lot in common. But they would diverge significantly in their later years, in religion and politics as well as in philosophy. This audiobook covers both of them, although it may cover Bertrand Russell even more.

A review of “Skepticism and Religious Relativism” (audiobook)

I was expecting something very different from this audiobook. Specifically, I was expecting to get an overview of agnostics, atheists, and other like-minded groups (including “secularists”). And these groups are certainly covered therein. But it is really a treatment of religious skepticism, including within the religious community. This audiobook also talks about the different kinds of skepticism, and the responses to it from within the believing community. And it finally talks about religious relativism – the idea that all religions are just a “state of mind,” and that none of them is more valid than any other. (More about that later.)

A review of “Complexity & Chaos” (audiobook)

In 1993, the original “Jurassic Park” film brought chaos theory to a wide audience. In that movie, the character of Ian Malcolm predicts that the act of bringing back the dinosaurs for this park will cause “terrible instability” (to paraphrase what he said). Many in the film’s audience probably wondered why they made a mathematician into such a prominent character for this movie. But, if you listen to this audiobook, you will see why they did so. Chaos theory has much to tell us about how unpredictable the world is. Thus, there’s more to chaos theory than what you’ve heard in “Jurassic Park” – although I love that movie, and its summary of this field. This audiobook explores the subject, and tells us what this mysterious area is all about.

A review of “A New Understanding of the Atom” (audiobook)

When the first atomic bombs went off in 1945, people witnessed the awesome power of the atom. It was so small that even microscopes failed to detect it, and yet it could cause the largest of any man-made explosions. But it was suspected even in antiquity that the world is made up of tiny particles. The word “atom” is itself of very ancient origin, and originally meant “indivisible.” But as any high school chemistry student knows, atoms are divided into much smaller parts. These include protons, neutrons, and electrons (among other things).

A review of “20th Century European Philosophy” (audiobook)

I already thought that twentieth-century Western philosophy was a vast wasteland, before I ever listened to this audiobook. But I listened to this audiobook with an open mind, because I wanted to better understand the history of philosophy. After listening to this audiobook, my worst fears seemed to be confirmed therein. It is hard for me to imagine a greater disaster area than the philosophies of the twentieth century.

What fascism is (and why it stinks)

Warning: This blog post contains a disturbing picture, related to the Holocaust.

It seems that people in most political movements will eventually denounce their political opponents as “Fascists” or “Nazis” (as I will describe later on in this post). At the very least, they sometimes compare their opponents to Nazis – sometimes accurately, sometimes inaccurately. Either way, though, they are right to denounce the Fascists and the Nazis, even if they do not always correctly identify who they are. (More on that later on.)

Hitler addressing the Reichstag, 1933

But what is fascism, and why exactly does it stink (and it definitely does)? What are the biggest problems with this system of government, and why should it be left on the “ash-heap of history” (to paraphrase a characterization of communism by someone else)?. That is what I will be discussing in this particular post. I will here give a brief overview of both the history and philosophy of fascism. In so doing, I will show why it cannot possibly bear the honest scrutiny of history. This will only be an introduction to this complex topic, which will touch on some of its major themes. Indeed, I have covered other aspects of this topic in some other blog posts (which I link to here). But I may nonetheless succeed in showing why fascism is an utter travesty, and why it should be discarded. I will also give my own take on it, with my own unique perspective.

Nazi book-burning in Berlin, May 1933 (which included some Jewish authors)

A review of “Einstein’s Revolution” (audiobook)

The name of Albert Einstein has become synonymous with genius. More than any other person, he is seen as the quintessential smart guy, and nearly everyone knows his name. There are other candidates for the greatest scientist in history, but nearly everyone would put Einstein on a short list. And why not? The man was brilliant. In particular, he’s associated with the famous equation “E = mc²,” later used to build atomic weapons and bring energy to the masses. There is brief coverage of that topic in this audiobook. But the main focus of this audiobook is on the theory of relativity, which may be the most astonishing breakthrough of the twentieth century.

A review of “John Dewey” (audiobook)

John Dewey was one of the most influential philosophers to come out of the then-rising United States. Specifically, he lived in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and was a professor at a number of universities. He wrote on a number of topics, but is best remembered for his writings on philosophy. In particular, he commented on education, and believed that he was “revolutionizing” all of American education with his philosophy.

A review of “William James, Charles Peirce, and American Pragmatism” (audiobook)

William James and Charles Sanders Peirce are two of the most influential philosophers to come out of the United States. They made contributions to a field called “philosophy of science,” which studies the proper foundation of scientific knowledge. Each of them had things to say about it, but their differences would later turn out to be quite substantial. Nonetheless, there is also significant overlap between them, which may be why they are still covered together in this audiobook. They were among the founders of a school called “pragmatism,” which was born in America in the 1870’s. Its influence would continue well beyond the deaths of these two remarkable men, who died within four years of each other in the early twentieth century.

A review of “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” (audiobook)

So I recently finished listening to an economics audiobook about Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek. It was called “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process.” This audiobook was the sequel to another audiobook called “Early Austrian Economics,” which I first listened to some years ago. One might have titled this audiobook “Later Austrian Economics,” except that applying the term “later” to this will no doubt be outdated before too long, if it isn’t already. Besides, “The Austrian Case for the Free Market Process” is probably a more exciting title, and may do more justice to the nature of the subject matter.

A review of “Keynes and the Keynesian Revolution” (audiobook)

“But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task, if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us, that when the storm is long past, the ocean is flat again.”

– John Maynard Keynes, in “A Tract on Monetary Reform” (1923), Chapter 3

I recently listened to an audiobook about the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who lived from 1883 to 1946. It was a good audiobook, which spoke of both his academic career and his political career. For example, he did some important diplomacy for the British government, and was responsible for some of the economic provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (the treaty that ended World War One). He also helped to secure some loans from the American government, which helped to improve his country's postwar economy somewhat – despite the interest rates which we imposed on this loan.

Communism in Russia: How the madness got started

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution."

- Karl Marx, in "The Communist Manifesto" (1848), Chapter IV

It was begun with the best of intentions, but it ended with the worst of results ...

It was a response to one failed institution called the "czars," which replaced it with another failed institution that was even worse. It was begun with the best of intentions, but it ended with the worst of results. And it was the first trial run of the communist system, which should have been the last because of the dismal results. But instead, it was attempted time and time again with the highest of hopes, only to end in the lowest of failures every time it was tried, with few seeming to learn anything from it.

Czar Nicholas II

Despite this, no one wishes to defend the legacy of the czars ...

But in putting forth these criticisms of the Russian Revolution, let me assure my readers that I do not wish to defend the legacy of the czars. There was indeed much abuse under their regime, and the Marxist revolution was a reaction against some very real problems that Russia was experiencing at that time. I don't have time to go into all the particulars of these problems, but suffice it to say that there was a long history of repeated crackdowns on the people's liberties, with much obstruction of the kinds of progressive reforms that might have solved these problems in a more constructive way. Czar Nicholas II reminds me of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI - a monarch who could have prevented his own downfall by a few concessions to the people's wishes, but who effectively engineered his own demise by his unwillingness to do so. The parallels to the French Revolution (and England's Charles the First) are numerous and striking, and the Russian Revolution is eerily reminiscent of the earlier revolution in France.

Eastern Front of World War One