Great post Melissa. Really underscores how academia’s been poisoned and also suggests (to me anyway) that there are other not so intelligent agencies at work behind these scenes.
I think you’re absolutely right! Scary stuff. It seems like there are a lot of people who are speaking out against it, though, so there’s hope that it’ll change!
Glad you liked it! It was interesting how these separate comments all converged into one message. I’m hoping this is something I can keep doing in the future.
This is a very old tendency. In the 1300s Ockham was canceled for trying to fight it, and nothing has changed since. My dad got his first professoring job in 1957, and he immediately saw the failings of tenure and publish-or-perish. He warned me and I listened.
Academia has NEVER been a haven for "free debate". The purpose of tenure and peer review is to guarantee that no heretic can advance through the ranks. All of this is perfectly well-known inside the academy but outsiders persist in holding silly myths, and express surprise when the natural tendency shows up publicly.
Interesting perspective. I guess there's always been an orthodoxy that must be followed. (Wasn't Socrates executed for going against the Church and the 'sophists' of the time?)
I wonder, though, are some times freer than others? Or has it really always been the same?
I read a few lines of Kant once, but never again. Nihilism isn't the way and it only took a few sentences for me to understand this. Having said this, it can serve as an important turning point in the seeking of truth.
I think you’re 100% right. I subscribed to this type of thinking for a little while as a teenager/young adult, and the effect it had on my life was profoundly negative. Like you said, though, it’s important to understand the ideas if you are to consciously reject them.
Yes, of course. We should try the hat on to see if it fits. Not all hats fit at first attempt, not all hats are immediately a bad fit altogether. Nihilism was a bad fit, from the start. Some other hats had the feel of a bad fit, but came to sit nicely over time. Others just sat perfectly from the first moment, but became outgrown in time. Others are just the kind of hat that we can wear and be comfortable in, no matter the circumstance. All the many hats we adopt that come to be true to ourselves, blend in to become one Almighty hat, that we feel and see and know, as our own, even if others can't bring themselves into the same kind if realisation.🙏🙏🙏
Ps. In an interview with Psychoanalyst Don Carveth, which I posted the other day, he talks about the projective fantasy of purification, leading to so much ultra this and extremist that.
Another thing that I think is at play is that postmodernism is a tactic to displace the origins of sovereignty.
Victimology has an underlying connection to the right of self defense. Clearly there is a long game plan with this idea, as victimology is being replayed in new forms now.
The 1960’s wasn’t the absolute beginning, but in my studies the idea that racism was systemic (thus only white skinned people can be racist) started back then. I read it in a text called Black Theology written by James Cone.
As an aside, Im biracial, so many of these discussions of race and identity are a part of my life. I know sometimes bringing up this issue brings a range of ideas… some I’d prefer to avoid.
From my standpoint, academic programs in the 90s and 00s began implementing the Liberation movements of the 60s. I’m sure Kant’s views may have put Art on a different path (as Michael Newberry points out) but the social implementation, at least through Theology, seemed to arise from academia in general and Yale, in particular.
Thank you so much for these comments! There's a lot to unpack here (a lot of which I didn't know before) so I'm taking them both as one unit and responding to them here.
The primary deduction "you cannot know a thing in itself" adds a lot to the discussion—in fact, it articulates the vague idea I've been chasing as to what exactly went 'wrong.' You're right—it is an unfalsifiable (and in my opinion, extremely dubious) claim which has been taken as truth and used as the basis for a lot of other arguments. An appeal to authority seems to be exactly what it is, and, given that these arguments are constructed in a very clever way, this can be hard to refute.
The 'victimology' stuff is almost a separate issue—although I'd argue that the Marxism that is commonly pushed in universities nowadays has its roots in the idea that human behavior is a result of circumstance instead of human nature, which then implies that it can somehow be changed, and so on. It's all a result of this type of 'relativist' thinking (which, of course, existed far before Kant—but as far as I know, was popularized again in this Enlightenment period).
These are, of course, merely the justifications that are used for such arguments. The far more interesting question seems to be who exactly is trying to displace the origins of sovereignty and to what end (another commenter yesterday mentioned Davos). Academia certainly has a role in it (interesting about Yale!), and the 'little guys' operating within academic institutions are basically just subscribing to this faulty, 'contagious' ideology. At the highest levels of academia, they are probably simply doing what they are told.
Liberation movements, from my understanding, all use marxism since it is a technique of the powerless to stand in unity against their oppressors. I would agree these liberation (marxist) movements are a separate technique from the postmodern belief systems. Not sure if liberation movements are a logical next step within postmodernism but it seems like that to me.
Well the victimology issue is delicate. Constructive criticism can sound like antagonism. I think this system of victimology has been well thought out since I think it weaponizes the right to self defense.
And your point about circumstance over human nature makes sense. Natural rights are a part of spiritual boundaries. To flip the mind’s of people within a populous, you have to deny a higher power or that we have access to divinity naturally. The focus on circumstance sounds like behaviorism.
Interesting thought about behaviorism—B.F. Skinner’s fascinating book “Walden Two” is an example of a proposed behaviorist utopia, and when I read it (a while ago at this point) it read like a dystopia—it’s hard to tell whether this was Skinner’s intention.
As for the victimology issue, it’s certainly a sensitive topic, which is a shame, because honest discussions would do more to bring people together than just about anything else. It’s scary—definitely seems like there’s something nefarious at play.
You are clear and articulate. Thank you for writing this.
My opinion of Kant is that he was placing Mathematics (which is as the highest intellectual standard and was doing his best to relate philosophical discourse in a mathematical way. One of his primary deductions “you cannot know a thing in itself” is unverifiable. Logicians might use the word unfalsifiable. In any case, every professor I asked about this idea, merely parroted it back in the same way. I’m not trying to use jargon here either, but my observation is that when you cannot tie experience back to the words being used, the idea is probably, at minimum, just an appeal to authority. That person (like Kant) was probably very bright and it is difficult to challenge the ideas of such a person in real time.
Thanks for mentioning it, I checked. I can't think why, but I un blocked you, undoubtedly it was by accident. I am still figuring my way about how things works.
Great piece!!
"Nevertheless, in this postmodern abyss, words mean their opposite."
Thus, my moniker POST post moderm~ I'm on a mission to create the world anew, with a return to Reason, Beauty and the Laws of Nature!
Thanks! :)
I love your concept of "Post post modern"—and the world desperately needs it right now!
Great mission to be on! 👏👏👏
Great post Melissa. Really underscores how academia’s been poisoned and also suggests (to me anyway) that there are other not so intelligent agencies at work behind these scenes.
I think you’re absolutely right! Scary stuff. It seems like there are a lot of people who are speaking out against it, though, so there’s hope that it’ll change!
Thanks for the shout-out! That burning pyre is awesome artwork! and bringing together the different articles into one theme is certainly enlightening
Glad you liked it! It was interesting how these separate comments all converged into one message. I’m hoping this is something I can keep doing in the future.
This is a very old tendency. In the 1300s Ockham was canceled for trying to fight it, and nothing has changed since. My dad got his first professoring job in 1957, and he immediately saw the failings of tenure and publish-or-perish. He warned me and I listened.
Academia has NEVER been a haven for "free debate". The purpose of tenure and peer review is to guarantee that no heretic can advance through the ranks. All of this is perfectly well-known inside the academy but outsiders persist in holding silly myths, and express surprise when the natural tendency shows up publicly.
Interesting perspective. I guess there's always been an orthodoxy that must be followed. (Wasn't Socrates executed for going against the Church and the 'sophists' of the time?)
I wonder, though, are some times freer than others? Or has it really always been the same?
I read a few lines of Kant once, but never again. Nihilism isn't the way and it only took a few sentences for me to understand this. Having said this, it can serve as an important turning point in the seeking of truth.
I think you’re 100% right. I subscribed to this type of thinking for a little while as a teenager/young adult, and the effect it had on my life was profoundly negative. Like you said, though, it’s important to understand the ideas if you are to consciously reject them.
Yes, of course. We should try the hat on to see if it fits. Not all hats fit at first attempt, not all hats are immediately a bad fit altogether. Nihilism was a bad fit, from the start. Some other hats had the feel of a bad fit, but came to sit nicely over time. Others just sat perfectly from the first moment, but became outgrown in time. Others are just the kind of hat that we can wear and be comfortable in, no matter the circumstance. All the many hats we adopt that come to be true to ourselves, blend in to become one Almighty hat, that we feel and see and know, as our own, even if others can't bring themselves into the same kind if realisation.🙏🙏🙏
Excellent piece. This exact thing is happening in my field of psychology and psychoanalysis too.
Ps. In an interview with Psychoanalyst Don Carveth, which I posted the other day, he talks about the projective fantasy of purification, leading to so much ultra this and extremist that.
Interesting perspective, and great post! Thanks for reading, hope to see you in these discussions in the future.
You bet. And I appreciate the follow back!
Another thing that I think is at play is that postmodernism is a tactic to displace the origins of sovereignty.
Victimology has an underlying connection to the right of self defense. Clearly there is a long game plan with this idea, as victimology is being replayed in new forms now.
The 1960’s wasn’t the absolute beginning, but in my studies the idea that racism was systemic (thus only white skinned people can be racist) started back then. I read it in a text called Black Theology written by James Cone.
As an aside, Im biracial, so many of these discussions of race and identity are a part of my life. I know sometimes bringing up this issue brings a range of ideas… some I’d prefer to avoid.
From my standpoint, academic programs in the 90s and 00s began implementing the Liberation movements of the 60s. I’m sure Kant’s views may have put Art on a different path (as Michael Newberry points out) but the social implementation, at least through Theology, seemed to arise from academia in general and Yale, in particular.
Thank you so much for these comments! There's a lot to unpack here (a lot of which I didn't know before) so I'm taking them both as one unit and responding to them here.
The primary deduction "you cannot know a thing in itself" adds a lot to the discussion—in fact, it articulates the vague idea I've been chasing as to what exactly went 'wrong.' You're right—it is an unfalsifiable (and in my opinion, extremely dubious) claim which has been taken as truth and used as the basis for a lot of other arguments. An appeal to authority seems to be exactly what it is, and, given that these arguments are constructed in a very clever way, this can be hard to refute.
The 'victimology' stuff is almost a separate issue—although I'd argue that the Marxism that is commonly pushed in universities nowadays has its roots in the idea that human behavior is a result of circumstance instead of human nature, which then implies that it can somehow be changed, and so on. It's all a result of this type of 'relativist' thinking (which, of course, existed far before Kant—but as far as I know, was popularized again in this Enlightenment period).
These are, of course, merely the justifications that are used for such arguments. The far more interesting question seems to be who exactly is trying to displace the origins of sovereignty and to what end (another commenter yesterday mentioned Davos). Academia certainly has a role in it (interesting about Yale!), and the 'little guys' operating within academic institutions are basically just subscribing to this faulty, 'contagious' ideology. At the highest levels of academia, they are probably simply doing what they are told.
Liberation movements, from my understanding, all use marxism since it is a technique of the powerless to stand in unity against their oppressors. I would agree these liberation (marxist) movements are a separate technique from the postmodern belief systems. Not sure if liberation movements are a logical next step within postmodernism but it seems like that to me.
Well the victimology issue is delicate. Constructive criticism can sound like antagonism. I think this system of victimology has been well thought out since I think it weaponizes the right to self defense.
And your point about circumstance over human nature makes sense. Natural rights are a part of spiritual boundaries. To flip the mind’s of people within a populous, you have to deny a higher power or that we have access to divinity naturally. The focus on circumstance sounds like behaviorism.
Thanks for the reply.
Interesting thought about behaviorism—B.F. Skinner’s fascinating book “Walden Two” is an example of a proposed behaviorist utopia, and when I read it (a while ago at this point) it read like a dystopia—it’s hard to tell whether this was Skinner’s intention.
As for the victimology issue, it’s certainly a sensitive topic, which is a shame, because honest discussions would do more to bring people together than just about anything else. It’s scary—definitely seems like there’s something nefarious at play.
You are clear and articulate. Thank you for writing this.
My opinion of Kant is that he was placing Mathematics (which is as the highest intellectual standard and was doing his best to relate philosophical discourse in a mathematical way. One of his primary deductions “you cannot know a thing in itself” is unverifiable. Logicians might use the word unfalsifiable. In any case, every professor I asked about this idea, merely parroted it back in the same way. I’m not trying to use jargon here either, but my observation is that when you cannot tie experience back to the words being used, the idea is probably, at minimum, just an appeal to authority. That person (like Kant) was probably very bright and it is difficult to challenge the ideas of such a person in real time.
I’d love to read Michael’s article but I can’t Kant lol for some reason. Maybe I’m blocked?
Thanks for mentioning it, I checked. I can't think why, but I un blocked you, undoubtedly it was by accident. I am still figuring my way about how things works.
Thanks so much Michael. Going to read your post now.