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

“Man is the measure of all things” … or is he?

“It is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not.”

– Socrates, as recorded in Plato’s “Theaetetus”

Is all truth in the “eye of the beholder?” Protagoras thought so, but Socrates didn’t …

Socrates and Plato both reported some words from the Greek sophist Protagoras, in Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus.” The dialogue features a character by the name of “Socrates,” believed here to represent the actual and historical Socrates. The character of “Socrates” thus quotes Protagoras as saying that “Man is the measure of all things.” Thus, we seem to have the word of both Plato and Socrates that Protagoras really said this. But what does it mean that “Man is the measure of all things”? As Socrates correctly argues, it seems to mean that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder” – or, at least, that Protagoras believed this to be the case. “If I believe that something is true,” say some today, “then it must be true.” But this belief leads to a number of problematic conclusions, as Socrates proceeds to point out in this same dialogue, the “Theaetetus” – named after one of the other characters in the dialogue. Nonetheless, some today (notably certain postmodernists) still proclaim that all truth is in the “eye of the beholder.” It is acknowledged that some things really do work this way, but it would seem that other things do not. Thus, this dialogue is a timeless meditation on objective truth whose arguments need to be heard today. Thus, it may be worth examining here in this post.

Socrates

A review of “Dimensions of Scientific Thought” (audiobook)

What is science, and how does it work? Are scientific theories certain, or can they change with the evidence? These are the kinds of questions that this audiobook asks. People associate science with a body of knowledge, about DNA or the planet Jupiter or whatever it might be. But science is more a way of thinking about things, than it is a body of knowledge. It’s a way of testing our beliefs, and evaluating them against the evidence. It has roots deep in ancient history, but our understanding of it has evolved dramatically over the centuries. This is one of a number of things that this audiobook makes clear.

Some thoughts about philosophy education

“[I] am a sort of gadfly, given to the state by the god; and the state is a great and noble steed who is tardy in his motions owing to his very size, and requires to be stirred into life. I am that gadfly which the gods have attached to the state, and all day long and in all places am always fastening upon you, arousing and persuading and reproaching you. You will not easily find another like me …”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded in Plato's “Apology”

I am not the sort of person that you would expect to be an advocate for philosophy education. I am a card-carrying member of the religious right, and I am aghast at the liberal indoctrination that so often passes for “education” today. Moreover, I disapprove of the “ivory-tower academia” into which philosophy has sometimes degenerated today. Yet I am a vigorous advocate of philosophy education. Why?

Socrates, who is quoted above

Reading about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded by Plato's “Apology”

Before beginning this project, I had just finished reading C. A. E. Luschnig's “An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach.” (More about that here.) I had earlier determined that after getting through this book, my first use of this (admittedly limited) proficiency would be to read all of the primary sources about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek. There aren't very many of them, I should add here, so I knew that this was a manageable task. Thus, I started doing so immediately after reading the introductory textbook about Greek.

Socrates

The conservative who liked philosophy

"I think, therefore I am."

- René Descartes

It's a funny thing about philosophy majors - none of them knew they wanted to major in it when they were kids. The reason is actually quite simple: With a few possible exceptions somewhere, none of them even knew what philosophy was when they were growing up. Even after graduating, many are hard-pressed to give you a good definition; because philosophers themselves argue about it until they're blue in the face (and I exaggerate only slightly). As kids, their confusion about it must be even greater.

Why I like political philosophy

"Philosophy is common sense with big words."

- Attributed to James Madison

Why political theory, instead of just political practice?

It is usually easy for others to understand why politics interests me - the market for political news is a considerable one, and the many ways that government affects our life (good and bad) create a great deal of public interest. But interest in political philosophy is not as common, so my fascination with it can be somewhat strange to others. Why would you read political works from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Why would you read books about political theory, rather than focus more exclusively on how government works in practice? And why would you read something about government from Ancient Greece?

Plato, Greek philosopher

The history of ideas

Part of it is undoubtedly an interest in history: the study of political philosophy - and other kinds of philosophy, for that matter - has a long and rich history. There are good ideas and bad ideas; theories that work and theories that fail; so one can learn a lot about history by studying these things. But why focus on this kind of history? Why not the history of art, or music, or science? It should be noted that I do have an interest in these things as well; but the reason political philosophy engrosses me so much is that the ideas found in it are all around us. It's in the values we espouse - whether we value equality of condition, for example, or prefer equality of opportunity. It's in the assumptions we make - both the workable and the unworkable ones. And it's in the arguments we engage in: the dialogue about politics, both among and between the different camps; and the endless discussions about the best way to govern society.

Baron de Montesquieu, a political philosopher I like

The difference between skepticism and close-mindedness

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

- Aristotle

Open-mindedness is defined as a "read[iness] to entertain new ideas" (which is positive)

It's long been fashionable for people in the Western world to claim they are "open-minded," and so this is claimed even by people who are not that way at all. (No one says with pride that "Yeah, dude, I'm closed-minded!") Yet closed-mindedness seems to be as common as it ever was, with people refusing to entertain any number of ideas they don't agree with. But what does it mean to be "open-minded," anyway? The website of Princeton University defines the word open-minded as "ready to entertain new ideas," and this seems to me to be appropriate. How does one know if an idea is false, if one has not heard it? (Or in the words of the Princeton definition, "entertain[ed]" it?) How does one know if they will like this food, if they haven't tried it? And how does one know if this idea is wrong, if they haven't heard it out?

Aristotle

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.

Difference between valid argument and sound argument

One of the biggest eye-openers of my education was learning what philosophers mean by the phrase "valid argument." As used by philosophers, a valid argument is not necessarily the same as a "sound" argument. A valid argument is one whose logic is solid, even if the premises are false. For example, take this argument:

If pigs had wings, they could fly.
Pigs have wings.
Therefore, they can fly.

The premises are false, but the logical structure of the argument is solid. If you accepted that pigs had wings, and that their having wings meant they could fly; then the conclusion that they can fly would necessarily follow. Philosophers would thus say the argument is valid; because the truth of both premises would establish the conclusion. But the argument is not "sound" in the philosophical sense; because it suffers from false premises - pigs don't have wings; and even if they did, that wouldn't mean that they could fly. Even one false premise makes it unsound - a sound argument must have both valid logic and all true premises. Then, and only then, can we say with certainty that the conclusion necessarily follows.

Here is an example of an argument that is not valid:

Jeff Sparks is a history buff.
Jeff Sparks likes Mexican food.
Therefore, Jeff Sparks loves baseball.

The premises are true - I am a history buff, and I love Mexican food. But the conclusion that I like baseball has no logical connection with these things. Therefore, the argument is invalid - even if the premises were both true, that wouldn't mean the conclusion is true. I do like baseball, but my love of history and Mexican food doesn't establish it. I could just as easily have concluded "Therefore, Jeff Sparks hates baseball," which is false. An invalid argument could have either a true or a false conclusion. It could go either way, which makes it different from a valid argument, where a conclusion necessarily follows from the premises being true.

Here is an example of a "sound" argument, as that word is used by philosophers:

All spaniels are dogs.
All dogs are animals.
Therefore, all spaniels are animals.

The argument is valid, and the premises are true. Therefore, the conclusion must be true. That's what philosophers mean by "sound," as contrasted with what they mean by "valid."

Why equalizing income conflicts with rewarding good behavior

I posted earlier that one of the most sacred tenets of liberalism is the goal of equality of condition: the idea that there should be no rich or poor, but that all should have the same amount of income and wealth, and that no one should possess any more than any other.

Bill Gates

Liberals are blind to arguments based on wealth being earned ...

In this previous post, I offered several arguments against equality of condition; but refrained from using the critical argument based on rewards. This is because too many liberals have prejudice against it to lead off with it, in a post about this subject. In liberals' minds, rewarding anyone for being productive is tasteless and vulgar; because it would mean that they would have more money than someone else. It's "vulgar" to reward Bill Gates for providing me with a nice computer, because it would mean that he would become even richer than he is now, and would thus have more money than the lazy bum on the street who refuses to work. Arguments based on people's earning the money fall on deaf ears, because liberals believe no one earns money without exploiting others, and they are thus blind to arguments based on wealth being earned.

Should we treat criminals differently?

Yet even they can see the flaws in their argument when it is applied to criminal punishment. They are perfectly okay with discriminating against criminals, for example, when they commit a violent crime like murder. The equality-of-condition argument, when taken to this extreme, would say that the criminal cannot be put in prison; because then we would be treating him worse than someone else. His treatment would be unequal to the freedom that we respect in the law-abiding members of society. Yet even liberals abandon this argument here, because even they can see clearly that the law-abiding citizens have done nothing to merit losing their freedom, while the criminal has. Equality of condition is cast aside in favor of a theory of justice based on rewards, and good citizenship is made a requirement for the otherwise-inalienable right to freedom.

Microsoft Windows

Why equalizing income is a bad goal

One of the most sacred tenets of liberalism is the goal of equality of condition: the idea that there should be no rich or poor, but that all should have the same amount of income and wealth, and that no one should possess any more than any other.

There are both practical and philosophical problems with this ...

There are several problems with this goal, and the problems include both the practical and the philosophical. I will address one example of each kind of problem, to show that this is a goal that is not only impossible to attain, but whose pursuit actually harms society; ultimately backfiring on its advocates, and making society worse off. (In doing so, I should make clear that I do not oppose equality of opportunity, as I am a fiery advocate of this kind of equality. It is equality of condition that I oppose, and it is equality of condition that I will argue against now.)

Why philosophy is relevant to fellow conservatives

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), written by Thomas Jefferson

Philosophy today has a reputation for being a very liberal subject. And it's quite true that the discipline is today dominated by liberals, even by the standards of academic subjects. For this reason, the subject may have something of a bad name among conservatives - and to some extent, this reputation is deserved. (Some philosophers really are quite out there.)

But there are a number of historical philosophers covered in these classes whose ideas fit neatly into modern conservatism. A number of our Founding Fathers were political philosophers (many of whom had some very original contributions to the subject), and I need not remind my fellow conservatives how beloved they are to our tradition.

James Madison

Besides them, there are others that it would behoove conservatives to know a bit about, and I would like to discuss a few of these philosophers now. Before doing so, let me make clear that I am not trying to convince anyone to major or minor in philosophy, or even take a class in it. But I hope this will help my fellow conservatives to understand that not all philosophers are liberal wackos.