The Inconsistency

Stephen Hicks has brilliantly uncovered an inconsistency central to how logically contradictory are postmodernist central claims. On one hand, their epistemology is a subjective, relativistic, claim that there is no Truth, no applicable metanarrative. Then their political outlook contradicts that completely for their major founders are all monolithically Leftist or Marxist, and classical Marxism self-identifies as Modernistic as scientific materialism, and that is a grand narrative. Are they ignorant of their central logical contradiction? No, they are too smart and too educated. Are they liars and hypocrites? Most likely, but they are also cunning revolutionaries as they use skeptical epistemology to undermine and gaslight the grand narratives that underpin the culture, values and beliefs of objectivist, Aristotelian, Modernist, capitalist, Judeo-Christian, republican, rational America and the West. Let me quote Stephen Hicks from his book, Explaining Postmodernism, Page 85: "There is a problem with making epistemology fundamental to any explanation of postmodernism. The problem is postmodernists' politics. If a deep skepticism about reason and the consequent subjectivism and relativism were the most important parts of the story of postmodernism, then we would expect to find that postmodernists represent a roughly random distribution of commitments across the political spectrum. If values and politics are primarily a matter of a subjective leap into whatever fits one's preferences, then we would find people making leaps into all sorts of political programs. This is not what we find in the case of postmodernism. Postmodernists are not individuals who have reached relativistic conclusions about epistemology and then found comfort in a wide variety of political persuasions. Postmodernists are monolithically far Left-wing in their politics." What does this glaring, practiced inconsistency lived by postmodernist reveal, that they denounce metanarratives epistemologically while simultaneously reintroducing an extralinguistic, political Marxist metanarrative about the world, an aim that they strive to bring about, with all their power and exertion? They are Progressive fanatics, a mass movement on the march blitzkrieging across the daunted West, and successfully attacking it too. They believe and live this logical contradiction in their moments of true believer fervor. When they are relatively sober, clear and reflective, they deny or admit that denouncing traditional metanarratives as a cynical plot to undermine Western presuppositions, all to serve their real, metanarrative goal of spreading Communism across the world. Marx is their prophet, Big Government is their god, and their radical Leftism is their ideology. Their self-contradictory view of the world is the delusional, perhaps mad conviction that true believers suffer from. I believe that we cannot know for sure that is an objective world out there, but our profound, instinctive need for meaning and purpose in our lives, as the basis for mental health and the sheer will to live and keep going, propels us to imagine and script metanarratives studded with values in order that we can make sense of things, and can motivate ourselves to keep moving on. For me, this is a very powerful, commonsensical "proof" that there is an objective world out there, that God exists and Lucifer exists, and that the world is an unending battle between good and evil, so we must craft our healthy metanarrative so that we may work with and for God to make the world and ourselves better. Stephen Hicks's warning about postmodernism is a wonderful blessing for the West, that perhaps we may yet turn the tide against the gaslighting, postmodernists radicals out to destroy first the West, and then the entire world. Stephen Hicks, a wise, principled, gentle, civilized Canadian atheist, is doing God's work for sure, and deserves accolades and huge thanks from all of us. Who knows how God works in mysterious ways.