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

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 “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.

A review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (audiobook)

I had heard only a little about Alexis de Tocqueville before I listened to this audiobook. I knew that he was from France, and that he had written a famous book about America. I knew a few other things about him. But for all intents and purposes, I consider this audiobook to be my introduction to Tocqueville’s ideas. Since I first listened to this, I undertook to read the book itself in its original French. The book’s title is “De la démocratie en Amérique” (“Democracy in America”), and it took me over three years to finish. Specifically, I read it from March 2019 to July 2022.

My experience with political philosophy in French

This is a follow-up to a blog post from 2014. (For this earlier post, click here.)

I wrote a post some years ago about my experience with French (available here), in which I told how I had used my French up to that time. I’ve done a number of things with my French since that time which merit an update of this post. These involve reading some political philosophers in the original – mainly Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Tocqueville. I have blog posts about each of these three individuals with a discussion of their respective ideas elsewhere, so I will not attempt to duplicate that coverage here. Rather, I will describe the experience of reading these men in the original French; and what it felt like to use my French in this new way.

François-Marie Arouet, better known as “Voltaire” – more about what I read from him later

A review of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (book)

“Amongst the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of conditions. I readily discovered the prodigious influence which this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society … I speedily perceived that the influence of this fact extends far beyond the political character and the laws of the country, and that it has no less empire over civil society than over the Government; it creates opinions, engenders sentiments, suggests the ordinary practices of life, and modifies whatever it does not produce. The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that the equality of conditions is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived, and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated.”

– Opening lines of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” (1835), Book 1, Introductory Chapter

I recently finished reading this work in its original French …

I recently finished reading Alexis de Tocqueville’s “De la démocratie en Amérique” (“Democracy in America”) in the original French. The work took me over three years to finish. Specifically, I read the work from March 2019 to July 2022. I would first read a paragraph out loud in French, then out loud in English, and then out loud in French again before moving on to the next paragraph. In this way, I got through the entire work one paragraph at a time. After doing so, I have much to say about it – some of it positive, and some of it negative. But first, let me give some comments on how (and why) the book was written, and how it was informed by Tocqueville’s travels to the United States.

Alexis de Tocqueville

Actually, Rousseau did NOT influence the Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)

Wikipedia argues that Rousseau influenced the Founding Fathers …

I have often heard people claim that Rousseau “influenced” the Founding Fathers. One of my high school history teachers said this, and so have some websites. Most prominently, Wikipedia is among those who claim this. But absolutely none of these sources ever offered any convincing evidence that this is actually the case. Moreover, most of the Founding Father quotes about Rousseau are negative, casting doubt upon the idea that he “influenced” them to any significant degree (or at all, for that matter).

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

A review of “Descartes, Bacon, and Modern Philosophy” (audiobook)

“Cogito, ergo sum.” (“I think, therefore I am.”)

– René Descartes, in his works “Discourse on the Method” (1637) and “Principles of Philosophy” (1644) – both works give the Latin version, although the earlier work also gave a French version (“Je pense, donc je suis”) that is actually the original

People know René Descartes more for his mathematics than for his philosophy. If you’ve ever taken algebra, you’ve probably seen two-dimensional equations graphed on what is still called a “Cartesian” coordinate plane. It is named after him for good reason, for he pioneered this “merging together” of algebra and geometry. But Descartes was also a very influential philosopher, who took part in the age-old debates over what is the most reliable basis of human knowledge. He answered that it was “reason,” and many in the Western world have since followed his lead in this regard.

A review of “Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity” (audiobook)

“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead

and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

– Closing lines of the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” (381 CE), a modified version of the “Nicene Creed” (325 CE) – as translated by the 1975 ecumenical version from the “International Consultation on English Texts” (or ICET)

In the eleventh century, Christianity was split into two groups: the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Church. These churches are the subjects of this audiobook.

A review of “The Vision of Léon Walras” (audiobook)

So I recently finished an audiobook about Léon Walras (pronounced “Valras”), a French economist who was alive from the years 1834 to 1910. I knew almost nothing about him before I listened to this audiobook about his work, I am sad to say. So I learned a lot from it, which was good for someone like me to know about. (Although I was basically an economics minor, I didn't hear Mr. Walras's name until well after I had graduated. So if you haven't heard of him, you're not alone – although I had heard some of his ideas before, I had never heard of him personally before I graduated.)

A review of Étienne de la Boétie’s “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” (audiobook)

Étienne de la Boétie

When “Discourse on Voluntary Servitude” was first published in 1577, its author had been dead for more than a decade. The author was Étienne de la Boétie, who had never made it to his 33rd birthday. His friend Michel de Montaigne said that Boétie had written it when Boétie was just 18 years old. Boétie had made quite a mark for someone so young, but most people have never even heard of his name. Even in the political philosophy world, his name is fairly unknown. Nonetheless, he is one of the most important political philosophers of the Renaissance era, and arguably of all time. His ideas are still studied today in universities.

Michel de Montaigne

A review of Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (audiobook)

I’ve read Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” itself in the original French. Thus, you might expect me to be something of a “fan” of this work. But on the contrary, I am a great detractor of it. To me, it is one of the most overrated books ever written, as this audiobook about it makes clear. But this audiobook is of extremely high quality, as it helps to show why the book is so problematic. It is better than just a “regurgitation” of the work itself – it is an evaluation of its ideas, and how well they actually stand up against logical scrutiny (they don’t).

A review of “Voltaire and Rousseau” (audiobook)

Voltaire and Rousseau disagreed with each other on many issues. Nonetheless, they do have at least one thing in common, which is that they were both prominent figures of the French Enlightenment (and of the Enlightenment more generally). Thus, they are covered together in this audiobook despite their disagreements. It is a single unified audiobook covering both philosophers, rather than two separate audiobooks being sold together. Since Voltaire was born more than 17 years before Rousseau, they focus first on Voltaire’s life, and then focus on Rousseau’s life, making little effort to connect their lives.

A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …

“The first man, who, after enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the ditches should have cried to his fellows: Be sure not to listen to this imposter; you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men” (1754), first paragraph of “Second Part”

I first read this work in English translation …

In the spring of 2007, I voluntarily read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”) in English translation. This would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

But more than a decade later, I read it in the original French, too

But I had been laboring for some three years on another French work, which was “in line” ahead of it, so to speak. This other work was Montesquieu's “De l'esprit des lois” (“The Spirit of Laws”), which I describe here. In 2018, I finally finished this work by Montesquieu, and could thus finally start on Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes.” This book is known by many titles in English, including “Discourse on Inequality” and “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” (both abbreviated versions of the full title). For simplicity's sake, I will use these abbreviated versions of this English title for the most part. I started this work in January 2018, and finished it some six months later in June 2018. Thus, I have read this entire work in its original French, including Rousseau's notes at the end. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

How to prevent tyranny: Separation of powers and checks & balances

"The political liberty of the [citizen] is a tranquillity of mind, arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so constituted as one man need not be afraid of another."

- Baron de Montesquieu's "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") [published 1748], Book XI, Chapter 6

Montesquieu had some important ideas about how to prevent tyranny (and they're still relevant today)

The U. S. Declaration of Independence owed much to the work of John Locke, the English political philosopher. But the political scientist Donald Lutz said that "If there was one man read and reacted to by American political writers of all factions during all the stages of the founding era, it was probably not Locke but Montesquieu." (Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, No. 1, March 1984, p. 190) This is not to deny the importance of Locke, as he was also an enormous influence on the Founding Fathers (see my blog post for evidence of this). Nonetheless, Montesquieu is definitely the author that had the greatest influence on both sides of the ratification debates, and perhaps even on the finished product of the United States Constitution itself. He's almost like a Founding Grandfather of the United States, his influence is so strong. This is why I recently finished reading his most famous work "De l'esprit des lois" ("The Spirit of Laws") in the original French. He was a Frenchman, who wrote his most famous work in 1748 - a book written over a quarter of a century before the American Revolution. This book was one of the most important influences on the Founding Fathers.

Baron de Montesquieu

How to prevent bad government: Keep any one group from getting too much power

Montesquieu is probably best known today for his important theory of a separation of powers in government. Put briefly, this theory is the idea that bad government is best prevented by keeping any one group from getting too much power over the others. James Madison referenced this danger in the Federalist Papers by saying that "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." (Source: Federalist No. 47) Hence, the need for a system of government that divides up these powers as much as possible. This is something that the United States Constitution does by dividing up this power into three branches of government - the legislative, executive, and judiciary. The legislative branch makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary branch judges and interprets the laws, with as little overlap between these three kinds of power as possible. (More on that in a separate post - for now, I will confine myself to talking about the specifics of the theory, at least in basic form.)

Why I want to read philosophy in other languages

It is well-known among my friends that I am a foreign language buff. Some of my friends also know that I am a philosophy buff as well. These things might seem to be totally separate from each other, and to some degree they really are. But there is one way I'd like to combine them, which is to read some philosophy written in French, German, or Greek without the aid of translation. Why would anyone want to do this, you may be wondering? This post attempts to explain it.