17 responses

  1. Rodrigo
    October 8, 2016

    Hey, Mr.Hicks. I am a student from Brazil and I’ve been reading some of your articles, but I can’t agree with your opinion about natural resources, Can you explain better why the resources aren’t limited and why is possible the economy continues growing?

    Reply

  2. Matthew Netherton
    February 8, 2018

    Professor Hicks,

    I’m a huge fan of yours. I’m currently working through Understanding Postmodernism and attempting to internalize all the major points. I can’t begin to express my gratitude for thinkers like you who fight the good fight against bad ideas. I’ve been the US Military for 12 years now, and I’m more concerned about the proliferation of Neo-marxism and post-modernism then any external threat I can name. You’re fighting a much more important war then I ever will. Bad ideas bring down great civilizations.

    I have a question about Kant’s philosophy…
    From your summary of Kantian philosophy, it seems to me that Kant didn’t actually show that we can’t know noumenally reality. From what I gather, he only showed that we can’t be sure that we have a perfectly accurate conception of it in all cases: that sense-perception frequently tweaks (more or less) our conception of reality across the spectrum of our experience. Ok, fair enough, but I don’t see how from this you can assume that it’s inevitable that we’ll have totally unreliable interpretation of reality.

    And, even if mathematical truths are a priori, we still need the results of sense experience to formulate these truths. For example, you can’t get an a priori truth like 2 + 2 = 4 until you’ve internalized the language needed to express truth and been taught the mathematical rules that enable us to add accurately. All this learning is facilitated by your senses (i.e., hearing the math teacher, learning the symbols, etc.).

    Did Kant actually….prove, that we can’t know Truth because our senses sometime get it wrong? Imperfect instruments can still yield good results if we learn to correct for their imperfections.

    All the best,
    Matt

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      February 9, 2018

      Dear Matthew: Thank you for that, and I agree entirely about the battle of ideas.
      About Kant: His arguments do reach more radically skeptical conclusions. The positions you sketch are an arguable and more modest form of skepticism than the one he aims for.
      As the semester is on, I don’t have time for more; but you are working the correct territory in your comment.
      Best,
      Stephen

      Reply

  3. Dr. Bruce Charles Meyer
    August 27, 2018

    Dr. Hicks,
    I see that the hardcover edition is now available on Amazon for $20. Perhaps you would want to place a banner announcement on the appropriate pages to that effect, eh? (That’s my polite Canadian tone of voice, lol.) I’m ready to order it for my students in my PHL 101, Intro to Philosophy class, and came to your site to see if the book is now available–which it is.
    Thank you for your work.
    You can find my dissertation on Philosophy of Education at academia.com, by searching for my name and the title “Christian Education Viewed As Initiation into Christianity As A Practice.” FYI.

    Bruce
    Dr. Bruce Charles Meyer
    Arlington, MA 02476

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      August 27, 2018

      Thanks, Bruce!

      Reply

  4. Nikolas de Leeuw
    March 13, 2021

    Hello

    Reply

  5. Daniel Martin
    May 12, 2021

    http://www.the-rathouse.com/AnythingGoes.html

    Do you consider the above link a balanced discussion of Stove?

    1. My impression from the preface to The Plato Cult is that Stove does not really pretend to prove Popper wrong, but rather to show that he, as a philosopher, can use logical tools to challenge Popper’s ideas, just as Popper challenged verification. Stove seems to be hampered by his own uncivil writing style.

    2. Stove challenges metaphysical assumptions going all the way back to Plato. He is challenging an entire lineage of western philosophy. He seems to dismiss an entire lineage of philosophy, based on historical starting point. He respects the philosophers as philosophers, but challenges some of their metaphysical foundations, as not “common sense” not probable, or not verifiable by outcomes.

    Are 1. and 2. above correct? Are there any recent balanced and critical overviews Stove’s work, that you are aware of?

    Suggestion: you could answer email and “thoughts” on your web page, on a separate “Feedback, Thoughts”” dropdown. Now you have that under “Texts in Philosophy”, “Philosophy of education”, and other headings, very hard to find. Maybe all “thoughts” under all headings could be searchable under a single dropdown. . That would make answers to your correspondence available to anyone, and avoid wasting time with individual correspondence. I searched for David Stove on home page, found nothing.

    Best regards, and as always, thanks for what you do,

    Dan

    Reply

  6. Daniel Martin
    May 12, 2021
  7. Carey G. Butler
    August 27, 2021

    I am so thankful for this offering of yours. I can only say that I believe you’ll be quite pleased what I’ll do with it. You shall have recompense in ways you may not yet imagine. Soon… very soon I’ll have it ready for you. Well done!

    Reply

  8. Carey G. Butler
    August 27, 2021

    Here is a corrected link for Ayn Rand’s ‘The Objectivist Ethics’: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-objectivist-ethics/
    Your summary is here: https://www.atlassociety.org/session/ayn-rand-the-objectivist-ethics which links to it correctly.

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      August 28, 2021

      Thanks, Carey.

      Reply

  9. Yolanda Troncoso
    February 11, 2022

    Dear Dr. Hicks,
    Thank you so much for the excellent interviews you do in the podcast/videocast world. I am presently listening to the interview you did with the boys of Triggernometry on “The Truth about the Nazis…”. It’s fascinating and confirmed lots of thoughts I’d had over the years of reading about WW2 but had not known how to knit them together, i.e. I didn’t understand how they all fit together. What I especially enjoy and find so helpful in this talk and in others I’ve heard you do is the clear chronological lines you make between the philosophers who originated certain ideas and how those ideas then become manifest in the political philosophies of certain leaders and ultimately in their practical implementations as real world policies.

    I’m a Spanish teacher at a large urban high school in New Mexico. For many years now the creep toward collectivist thought has been an undercurrent of the way teachers are trained here and how they teach. In the last two years we’ve reached critical mass. The ideological struggle between the collectivist value system and the value system of individual identity and accountability has now almost become publicly open. All it lacks is for someone to identify it openly and clearly in one of our faculty meetings or instructional council meetings. For various reasons I’m probably going to be that person. I think this previously covert and now overt attempt to ideologically take over the school needs to be called out in a public fashion. I see no reason why teachers should roll over and throw up their hands and just go along with the collectivist steamrolling. At the very least, a public discussion and debate about it needs to take place so that all teachers can make up their own minds. All our instructional council meetings are like struggle sessions where the collectivist side wears the non-collectivist side down with incessant stone walling and divergences into petty minutiae for the sake of “reaching consensus”—which never really happens. What does happen is that they get their way because they tire out their opponents and drag the meetings out for as long as they can.

    This year three teachers on staff began a club for students called “The Proletariat Club”. It is an overt and very public effort to inculcate students into a collectivist worldview. I’m not positive but it may even be a Communist worldview. It is certainly Marxist; one of the teacher sponsors runs reading and study circles of the works of Karl Marx outside of school in his free time. By his own admission he is a dedicated Marxist, maybe even religiously so. It is not a stretch to conclude that he is probably doing something similar in the student club. Each day when the club is announced on the school wide announcements they lead off with a quote from some Marxist or Communist leader or intellectual. It sounds crazy to me to hear these cherry-picked quotes about the selfishness of capitalism and the promises of free stuff under collectivism. I worry for the students: they are young, inexperienced, and easily influenced. Every divisive tactic in the book is on display at my school: the encouragement to put rainbow signs on classrooms to identify them as “safe zones” for LGBTQ+ students; the teaching of the 1619 Project as the curriculum in the Social Studies Department; the policy of Restorative Justice (here that manifests as permissiveness); the push to obfuscate language regarding the legal status of “immigrant” students; the pressure to use preferred pronouns by everyone; a “dual language” program in Spanish/English that serves as a cover for ethnic balkanization along linguistic, cultural, and historic lines; and regular “professional development” in Critical Pedagogy and Social Emotional Learning. This is just a sampling of what goes on at the school where I teach.

    Thank you for reading my long letter up to this point. I mentioned the above to give context to my question. Through listening to you and James Lindsay I think I understand what is happening at my school and I think I can identify the chronology of how we got to this point. However, I know that I need to read some of the original works by some of the collectivist thought leaders whose ideas are underpinning this ideological overthrow to really tackle this issue at our school meetings because I don’t just want to simply repeat what I’ve heard you and James say. I need to know the ideas for myself. I know from repeatedly listening to you and James Lindsay who the big names are: Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Gramsci, Marcuse, Freire, Giroux, et.al. When I look at their oeuvre, I am overwhelmed. Where do I start? When I was a freshman in college in the 80’s I read The Critique of Pure Reason, but I didn’t understand it and remember nothing except the title. I’ve read The Communist Manifest twice over the years, but again I don’t remember much now. I’ve read excerpts of Nietzsche and read The Pedagogy of the Oppressed right before I started my first teaching job in Arizona in ’91. (I threw his ideas out the window during the middle of my first semester teaching on the US/Mexico border. They were unworkable.) I am embarrassed to say that my education has not been very good. Part of it is my fault, but part of it is that I attended school systems that weren’t sincerely dedicated to education. (I suspected this as a youth; now as an old person I’m sure of it.) Therefore, I need: 1) to read an overview of these philosophers and how their ideas lead into or are connected to one another; and 2) a basic and essential reading list of the above philosophers’ works that would give me the intellectual underpinnings I need to fight back. Can you help me with one and two above? What books/essays/articles would you recommend? I suspect that many of the listeners of James Lindsay are in the position I am. I think your suggestions would probably become very popular.

    If you’ve read this far, thank you so much for your patience, your time, and your attention.

    Best regards,
    Yolanda T.

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      February 11, 2022

      Thank you for this long and thoughtful note, Yolanda. Let me follow up with some recommendations soon.

      Reply

  10. Steven
    February 20, 2022

    Hi Dr. Hicks,

    Do you have any reading recommendations on contemporary conceptualisations of human nature? Is it best to begin with Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, modern thinkers like Kahneman, Pinker and Dennett, or somewhere else?

    Thank you!

    Reply

    • Stephen Hicks
      February 20, 2022

      I think start where you are most interested — biology, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, or wherever — and follow your nose. Read some reductionists, some dualists, and some emergentists to get a sense of the range.

      Reply

  11. Stephan Naro
    January 5, 2026

    I have been slowly, randomly working my way through this list. Finally got to Singer’s … “contribution” to my eudaimonia. That there is an extract from a book titled PRACTICAL Ethics??? So, The right thing to do is to stop buying TVs produced by Chinese workers so that they will lose their jobs and fall into poverty and… so forth? THAT is Singer’s wish for the world? “Ho ho ho, Stalin and Mao, you guys are amateurs. Watch my subtlety!”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top
mobile desktop