What does post-modernism aim at exactly? Is it simply rebellion against any system regardless of its functionality? Regardless of its system (or lack therof) of thought, we both largely agree that all systems can be improved, but those improvements do no always require construction in a vacuum. New systems, whether they be centered around economics, law, technology or art, are always modified out of pre-existing structures. To completely do away with the past and discard its usefulness is to risk our future.

Did Post-Modernism influence the enlightenment?

In this Chapter, Sean and Wolf unpack the benefit of creating hypothetical new structures to replace the preexisting ones BEFORE tearing them down; we look at the pitfalls of too much vs. too little skepticism; we remind ourselves that the main impetus for changing any existing structure is based on survival of not only the individuals but community as well; we ask ourselves what structures are built in the absence of a daily influence and stress of survival situations, and how can we ensure that they are not counter to our survival in the process; if too much comfort leads to decay, and too much stress leads to death, what is the eudaimonic approach to stress, and how does postmodernism help or hinder this search?

Sean's personal reflection: After listening to this I was really struck by the fact that nothing about postmodernism as far as I know in its current state, aims at offering any solutions to existing problems, other than that the structures already in place (which provide protection against problems only experienced by individuals that lived prior to those structures) are the cause for the new problems. To me, this is similar to a lot of the criticisms of capitalism that you hear today. There is much evidence that capitalism has actually reduced abject poverty in the world. Yet, the people who are the most benefited from capitalism criticize it as being responsible for suppressing the lower classes.

"Does post-modernism shoot itself in the foot by being skeptical of logic's and of reason's abilities to be good tools to map reality? how can it assign value, whether it's good or bad, to anything if postmodernism itself inscribes that such valuations can never be based on truth, but on mere power?"

But an even better question, or series of questions, are: What is a healthy amount of skepticism? How can Eudaimonia be applied to Post-modernism? How can we avoid "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" (or isolating the most probable cause of a systemic problem) without slipping into Nihilism?

In Wolf and Sean's most challenging topic to date, we ultimately attempt to understand the judgments made by our organic instruments... by using the instrument that makes judgments... while also questioning whether the instruments are doing the judging and not societal power structures.

Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web

https://youtu.be/VLzJFh-7daQ

In our most compelling chapter on Good vs. Evil, Wolf and Sean discuss The Golden Rule, Silver Rule, The impact of intent, and is utopia even desirable; Can humans know what is good without the aspects of evil; Can humans grow without gravity?

We thank you for joining us in these thoughtful discussions. We hope that they get your cognitive wheels turning and inspire you to philosophize more yourself!

The gold standards of modern moral philosophy have been established either through religion alone or through thinkers heavily influenced by its teachings. Our desires are often not commiserate with some moral axioms, such as the "thou shalt not" variety; knowing what not to do can be just as important if one doesn't know what they should do, to begin with. But is knowing what to do without knowing what not do commiserate with any system of morality?

Welcome Olympians! Have you ever wondered why you consider some actions to be good and others to be bad? Have you doubted your own intentions when making a decision?

Do the terms "Good" and "Evil" only exist in dualistic relativity to one another; Can one be defined without the presence of the other? Does the mere act of thinking evil thoughts cause one to act in a way that brings one closer to that outcome? Is nature evil? Is reality evil? Is everything "Good!" #JockoPodcast?

Wolf and Sean begin this 4 part series on "Good vs. Evil" by analyzing natural phenomena that exist outside the realms of human social structures.

Wolf and Sean unpack and analyze the meanings of the words "strength," "power," and "competence." How might these terms be understood from a societal standpoint?

But then, our podcast took an unexpectedly personal turn, and we began to relate these terms to our experiences in coping with the COVID pandemic. What does strength mean if there is no adversity? We found that stoic philosophy has answers.

Wolf's blog post on his isolation experience: https://words.okwolf.com/working-remotely-well

Science has led to many great discoveries, but what are the limits of knowledge available to us through our perceptions? What does it even mean to have perceptions in the first place? This episode includes a deep dive into how our experiences influence the nature of our reality, why we should be skeptical of them, and what some potential solutions to that problem look like.