Post-Modernism and the War on Free Speech

NOTE: This is a very brief (and stumbling) overview of my understanding of Post Modernism. For a more in depth look at Post Modernism I would recommend reading Stephen R.C. Hicks book Explaining Post Modernism. I would also recommend checking out lectures and talks given by Dr. Jordan Peterson, Professor of Psychology, which can be found for free on YouTube.

From Stephen Hicks book Explaining Post Modernism

“Heidegger offered to his followers the following conclusions, all of which are accepted by the mainstream of Post-Modernism with slight modifications:

1)  Conflict and contradiction are the deepest truths of reality;

 2) Reason is subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality;

3)  Reason’s elements – words and concepts – are obstacles that must be un-crusted, subjected to Destruktion, or otherwise unmaked;

4) Logical contradiction is neither a sign of failure nor of anything particularly significant at all;

5) Feelings, especially morbid feelings of anxiety and dread, are a deeper guide than reason;

6) The entire Western tradition of philosophy – whether Platonic, Aristotelian, Lockean, or Cartesian – based as it is on the law of non-contradiction and the subject/object distinction, is the enemy to be overcome.”

For those who are new to Post Modernism, it is the philosophy that is currently being taught in universities. It started as a counter to the enlightenment philosophy that gave us science and reason. It is safe to say that they are anti-science and anti-reason and believe that feelings are a better way to view the world then through reason, as seen in point five. This means that they will use science and reason as long as it supports their feelings, because post-modernists believe that feelings are a better way to understand truth. You can see in point six that the Western tradition of reason and science is the “enemy to be overcome.” This blended with Marxism gives us the idea that everything is open to interpretation and the current interpretation is the one in power. Since it is in power it must be oppressing those who are not in power. This boils everything down to a power game with oppressors on one side and oppressed on the other.

Freedom of Speech, as well as words in general, is open to interpretation as well. So when you see protestors at a Free Speech rally calling the people inside Nazi’s and Fascists that is because they feel that those people are Nazi’s and Fascists. In the Post-Modernist perspective that feeling is the only thing that matters. So you could say, I’m not a Nazi, I hate Nazi’s and give evidence that you are not a Nazi and they still will not believe you. That is what happens when you use feelings to understand reality. They feel that you are a Nazi and so it is true.

The idea outlined in point three is what allows people to change the definition of words to suit their needs. If they feel racism = power + privilege then of course it must mean that. Arguing with them on this point is useless because logic and “reason [are] subjective and impotent to reach truths about reality.” In fact any attempt to argue with them about the truth is meaningless except as a way for your group to gain power over their group.

This outlook means that they do not believe in dialog. The root word of dialog is logic and so why would they believe in dialog since all logic is a power game used by people in power to oppress those who are not. This is why they try to stop people from speaking on college campuses. It is not because they are afraid of them, at least not wholly, but because they see their use of logic and reason as a tool for oppression. We get the word logic from the Greek word Logos, meaning word or reason. It is clear that words and speech are closely linked to logic, but if logic is a Western tool of oppression then words must be part of that oppression.

Since words are oppressive, freedom of speech must be oppressive because it gives freedom to those in power to use logic in order to oppress those not in power. This means it is very easy for a Post-Modernist to see free speech as hate speech. They can of course change the meaning of the words hate speech to suit whatever needs they want as long as they feel that they are being oppressed by what is being said.

This is what is being taught in our universities in the West. This idea that Western civilization is oppressive and that reason and logic are just tools of that oppression. This is what it means to be a Post-Modernist Neo-Marxist. It is easy to write these people off as stupid, but I will tell you, they are not stupid. They tell you what they are doing openly, you can read it on any Women Studies and Feminist websites along with Antifa websites. They want to tear down Western civilization (the patriarchy or Fascists). They are very well educated and they know exactly what they are doing.