The New York event was fast and fun, with a sold-out-wait-list-only crowd. Gene Epstein hosted and moderated. Comedian Dave Smith opened with some wry observations about current culture and politics. Thaddeus Russell was energetic and engaging in arguing that postmodernism is necessary for a politics of individual liberty. I argued the negative. Here are the pre and post voting results, along with some pics (click to enlarge) from the event.
Thanks very much to Gene Epstein for inviting me and for moderating the event graciously. Also thanks to Jane Menton for her logistical efficiency.
Would love to see an outline of the arguments.
Seems clear from the poll that it’s more likely that more minds were made up than changed in that the “undecided” audience members dropped substantially. I’d be interested whether anyone changed from a “yes” to a “no” or vice-versa.
Loving the book, Dr Hicks. Keep up the good work!
Hi Dr. Hicks,
Do you know if there are any plans to make the debate audio or video available?
I very much enjoy your work.
Best regards,
Ryan
I’ve heard that Reason is publishing the video 10 days after the event.
The video of the event is accessible here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb9Eajt0KVA&t=2s
Truly excellent event.
Thanks, Chris.
When POMO’s take political control, guys like “professor” Thad will be the first in the woodchipper.
Dr Hicks had the best sense of humour. No one is safe from the Erotic high rise building oppression!
“There is nothing in my book and my work anywhere that is true. I never speak the truth. I’m telling stories.” -Thaddeus Russell at about the 51:30 mark
What an amazing contribution to human intellectual advancement.
Hearing this from Russell inspired me to dig up one of my favorite quotes from Thomas Nagel, since he identified this phenomenon of “intellectual laziness” so well:
“The worst of it is that subjectivism is not just an inconsequential intellectual flourish or badge of theoretical chic. It is used to deflect argument, or to belittle the pretensions of the arguments of others. Claims that something is without relativistic qualification true or false, right or wrong, good or bad, risk being derided as expressions of a parochial perspective or form of life–not as a preliminary to showing that they are mistaken whereas something else is right, but as a way of showing that nothing is right and that instead we are all expressing our personal or cultural points of view. The actual result has been a growth in the already extreme intellectual laziness of contemporary culture and the collapse of serious argument throughout the lower reaches of the humanities and social sciences, together with a refusal to take seriously, as anything other than first-person avowals, the objective arguments of others.” -The Last Word, (c)1997, p.6
Thank you, Dr. Hicks, for doing the messy work of arguing against these subjectivists. Very nice performance in the debate.
-Ryan
Just discovered this debate. Dr. Hicks mentioned many times that he would “provide the quotes” from the various pomo authors Thaddeus claimed he was misrepresenting. I’m wondering where I could access those quotes. Thanks.
Thanks for your interest, Sheldon. They were posted here in July: http://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/07/29/soho-debate-quotes-quine-kuhn-feyerabend-and-lentricchia/