Do Free Societies Need Postmodernism? A Debate
Thaddeus Russell and Stephen Hicks debate human nature, moral relativism, and the nature of truth.
HD DownloadPostmodernism is necessary for a politics of individual liberty.
That was the topic of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on June 17, 2019. It featured Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy at Rockford University, and author Thaddeus Russell. Soho Forum director Gene Epstein moderated.
It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, and the side that gains the most ground is victorious. Hicks prevailed in the debate by convincing 34 percent of audience members to change their minds.
Arguing for the affirmative was Russell, whose 2011 book, A Renegade History of the United States, argues that cherished American freedoms come from the selfish desires of ordinary people. Renegade University, founded by Russell, offers courses on diverse subjects from postmodernism to the history of martial arts.
Hicks argued for the negative. He's the executive director at The Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship. He is the author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (2011) and Nietzsche and the Nazis (2010).
The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan's East Village.
Music: "Modum" by Kai Engel is licensed under a CC-BY creative commons license.
Produced by Todd Krainin.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What a stupid question.
Indeed, that was my first reaction too. The question is stupid on its own merits, but doubles down on its stupidity by assuming there is some consistent definition of "post-modernism". You may as well ask if free societies need chili.
is a society w/o chili free?
Of horrid farts? Yeah.
You might say the question and the debate are po-mo themselves.
Moral relativism:
The death penalty is immoral.
Discuss.
In absolute it is not immoral.
Argument over.
Kinda depends on whether the authority imposing its can be depended on to apply it, i won't say 'fairly', but by the rules.
Right now a prosecutor or a policeman can withhold evidence or solicit what he should know is perjury with the knowledge that, should he be caught, the odds are that he will not be punished. Under those circumstances, the death penalty is immoral.
I would watch this debate if you had invited Camille Paglia.
Yes. Add her to any Reason debate.
She's not woke enough for New Reason.
No.
The fact that humans discovering what the truth is, is difficult and often goes down wrong roads, but does not mean there is no truth at all.
An assertion of rights, including a general right to liberty, is an assertion of truth. If there is no truth, there are no human rights just government granted privileges, and no human liberty that a just government is obligated to protect. Postmodernism tears down the foundation of liberty, leaving it unprotected if something more "interesting" comes along.
As
Yes, the whole Everything is equally true/Nothing is (equally) true throws humanity into a relativistic cesspool, subject to whatever form of tyranny emerges at a given time and place. And "democratic" tyranny is no more ethical than any other type.
Absent some essential truths - be they revealed or inferred from observation - then all is simply an assertion of will.
It is not clear we need modernism in order to have liberty, even less so in the case of postmodernism.
"Absent some essential truths – be they revealed or inferred from observation – then all is simply an assertion of will."
By this statement, po-mo itself is irrelevent; it claims the truth is there are no truths.
Free society has to put up with postmodernism. Unfree societies just send critical, skeptical, ironic postmodernists to the wall.
"There is no truth, only different narratives from different people."
"Well, that's what *you* say!"
repeat ad nauseum
Glad to know our best and brightest are still working on this.
No.
Post modernism is the dumbest shit ever invented.
It takes the limitations of human knowledge as evidence that there is no such thing as knowledge, rather than that humans are fallible. That is an extraordinary conclusion. It is rare when science completely overturns an accepted understanding of a phenomena, rather than refine it.
As you say, dumb shit.
Reason's conversion to the Postmodern Marxist Theocracy continues.
A free society doesn't NEED postmodernism. A free society doesn't NEED peach ice cream, or garbage pail kids trading cards, or racially themed porn. But a free society needs the possibility of all these things without the interference of self-important buttinskies.
Ok, I will admit that I was not really up to speed on postmodernism as it exists. Thanks for filling me in.
Your philosophy is horrifying.