I'd argue that each successive generation raised under postmodernism is more off the rails than the last. The first generation, say the one of the 1960s, was only sort of nutty. Their teachers, not all of whom had been indoctrinated, had been raised in an enlightenment (logic- and objective fact-based) world. They may have rejected that, but they were intellectually coasting along under its momentum.
The second generation, say that of the 1990s, was instructed by the people raised in the 1960s, who were still managed by folks from the earlier, enlightenment era. They were taught crazy things, but still not totally insane. The indoctrination in the academies was more complete, but still not universal.
Today's generation is almost completely under the tutelage of postmodern teachers who are under the control of postmodern managers. The result is bat guano-crazy things like the craze over 178+ genders, the anti-scientific support for transgender people, the on-its-face stupid concept of unconscious bias and a complete lack of gratitude for the preceding generations who gave them everything up to and including the smartphones on which they while away the tedious hours.
When we see the mob come after people because they refuse to support today what was yesterday considered wrong (see: Obama's change in support for gay marriage, the demand that we all call Bruce Jenner a woman instead of crazy), we're seeing what happens when the culture is thoroughly postmodern, from top to bottom.
Without even a shred of objective reality or logic, there is nothing to keep us from changing course capriciously, wildly, even violently. Postmodernism carries with it no momentum from accepted thought, only the childish emotions of the mob.
 |
| And so massive corporations rush to deplatform the nutbag Alex Jones without warning this week. It's a postmodernist act - there's no objective measure bring applied that will allow us to predict who's next or even what's next. |
3 comments:
They are so indoctrinated with stupidity that common sense is too difficult a concept for them to grasp.
I can't recommend highly enough this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Fools-Frauds-Firebrands-Thinkers-Left/dp/1472935950/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1534040458&sr=8-1&keywords=fools+frauds+and+firebrands
or indeed anything by Roger Scruton. His original version of this book in the 70's got him ostracized and kicked out of his teaching job at University, now it's on the upswing and the fools who condemned it are shown to be just that while he is now Sir Roger Scruton. Kind of amazing that. Some people high up have recognised him for what he is, maybe the Queen! She's a clever old stick.
A favourite quote from him, apologies if already posted.
I shall argue that the conservative attitude, and the doctrine that sustains it, are systematic and reasonable. Conservatism may rarely announce itself in maxims, formulae or aims. Its essence is inarticulate, and its expression, when compelled, is sceptical. But it is capable of expression, and in times of crisis, forced either by political necessity, or by the clamour for doctrine, conservatism does its best, though not always with any confidence that the words it finds will match the instinct that required them. This lack of confidence stems not from diffidence or dismay, but from an awareness of the complexity of human things, and from an attachment to values which cannot be understood with the abstract clarity of Utopian theory.
PS. The Post Modernist Movement of Derrida, Foucault et al he calls the Paris Nonsense Machine.
Thanks for the heads-up! I just bought it on Audible and will listen to it this week.
Post a Comment