Dive into a fascinating exploration of applied postmodernism with hosts who bring contrasting worldviews to the conversation. This episode tackles the provocative idea that selectively applying postmodern principles amounts to "cheating" in philosophical discourse.
The conversation begins by unpacking postmodernism itself – a philosophical approach questioning whether objective reality can truly be known. While the hosts acknowledge value in considering multiple perspectives, they challenge the increasingly common practice of applying relativistic thinking only when convenient. Through engaging examples and thoughtful analysis, they examine how terms like "privilege" and "lived experience" have entered everyday language since 2015, often deployed inconsistently.
A highlight of the discussion centers around the "Mott and Bailey" fallacy – when someone makes a controversial claim but retreats to more defensible territory when challenged. This rhetorical tactic appears frequently in discussions about critical theory, allowing people to make broad statements but avoid defending them by shifting to easier positions.
The conversation takes a fascinating turn when exploring morality. Can we truly speak of "good" and "bad" in a relativistic framework? One host suggests replacing these binary concepts with "constructive" versus "destructive" or whether actions "build up" or "tear down" others. Through examples ranging from helping a friend with unhealthy eating habits to appropriate contexts for profanity, they demonstrate how nuance matters in ethical considerations.
Whatever your philosophical leanings, you'll appreciate the hosts' commitment to intellectual honesty and their final agreement that consistency matters. Whether embracing or rejecting postmodernism, applying principles selectively undermines the integrity of any worldview. Subscribe now for more thought-provoking conversations that bridge divides and find common ground.
