Responding to hostility with hostility is emotional, not rational.
The geographic reality is that Canada derives substantial, permanent trade and defence advantages from our position as neighbours. Realignment towards China and Europe for emotional reasons squanders those advantages.
Would also recommend the Moody's Talks podcast led by Mark Zandi, the Moody's Analytics chief economist. He's been more or less talking about this for months now and sounded the alarm much earlier than others about this prospect.
I second this. Probably my favorite podcast right now. Interestingly, I admire Mark's guts to make somewhat bold calls early, but I trust the co-hosts' (Marissa, Chris, and Dante) takes a bit more for some reason.
I think this is covered in Micheal Easter’s notion that as societies become more comfortable, our brains lower the threshold of what constitutes a “problem” in our lives. We’re wired not only to be great at problem solving but also discovering new ones. Think this is based on prevalence theory related research in psychology.
First off, I think you're a bit convoluted with your timeline with modernism and postmodern. Most of what you seem to criticize seem to be related to postmodern sensibilities, rather than modernist one. Modernism attempted to make new, but with a belief in progress and a utopian/ideal vision. Postmodernism in contrast often would have been interested in breaking down long held assumptions, and an inert opposition to grand narratives and a promotion of complex meanings. [1]
Second, looking through the binary lens of 'creation' or 'destruction' is reductive. Plenty of anthropological, sociological and historical evidence seem to suggest that as a species we are capable of being organized in many different arrangements. I acknowledge that marriage 'feels' like a more straightforward institution to enforce with clear benefits to individuals, but I would suggest that you strongly consider that it too has sharp limitations, including aspects of oppression or suppression (e.g. for the more naturally promiscuous) historically.
In general while the assertions and influence of the postmodern project are a mixed bag. They've led to overt widespread cynicism and loss of meaning for many in our time, but they've also brought with them an invaluable tearing down of assumptions that would otherwise be treated as unquestioned narratives of reality. [2] I would hope that awareness of such realities won't lead us down disarray but to an embrace of the fact that there is great diversity in the way we live, and that fixed constructs such as marriage might no longer be capable of solely accommodating that, but might instead co-exist among other arrangements and notions that can.
Thirdly, I would suggest looking into 'metamodernism' which we seem to be slowly beginning to enter. One description you might consistently hear of it is that it's described as if it's an "oscillation" between aspects of modernism and postmodernism. - In other words, an answer to postmodernism's shortcomings and negative effects, while still not abandoning its realizations. [3] [4]
> Postmodernism in contrast often would have been interested in breaking down long held assumptions, and an inert opposition to grand narratives
I don't understand why postmodernism is described like this, when the typical presentation of postmodern ideas (even, and perhaps especially, in the primary sources) is literally phrased as a grand narrative, albeit one that points towards a forcefully stated skeptical outlook where even "complex meanings" are ultimately unknowable. Isn't the whole thing a little self-defeating at that point? There are more and less meaningful ways of "tearing down assumptions", and the postmodern approach just tends to come with a lot of theoretical baggage (much of it essentially tacked on from modernism itself) that ultimately weighs it down.
I'm not sure if metamodernism fixes this issue, but your description of it suggests it does not. Philosophical pragmatism ultimately seems to do a better job of shedding the "grand narrative" tendency, and that tradition is largely independent from postmodernism.
Can you point me to one serious postmodern theorist that holds this view? There are many different views of the postmodern, but rejection of meta-narratives (academic speak for "grand narrative" here) is pretty much universally accepted.
It's a pretty standard criticism of Lyotard, with whom that description of post-modernism is perhaps most widely associated. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - which is a quite well-regarded source - has a very readable account of Lyotard's intellectual background https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lyotard/#InteBack which relates quite plainly that he was far from intellectually consistent in his rejection of metanarratives (or "narratives about narratives"). Rather, a number of contingent political shifts in his outlook on the French society of his time seem to have played a larger role in how he chose to frame his arguments.
Given how closely this description of post-modernism is associated with Lyotard, one can only surmise that other post-modern authors were, if anything, even less consistent with it.
I would look at the methods of Jean Baudrillard, particularly his book Simulacra and Simulation which is a collection of parables each of which could be the plot of a movie starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and each of which attacks the reality principle in one way or another.
These are all small micro-master narratives which each have a totalizing perspective and collectively reduce the ‘truth’ to the ‘truth that is out there’ in the intro sequence to the X Files.
Furthermore I would point to his book On Seduction which is is even more accelerationist than Simulacra in that he tells you exactly how to tear the roof down.
>So what is the value of such work, which is so open to interpretation that 100 years later you will find diametrically opposed takes on its meaning?
Different takes to make sense of complex phenomena happen in many fields. It's not a co-incidence that it is especially as such in the realm of our culture where challenging existing interpretations is common place.
>Conjectures about what the driving forces of society are a dime a dozen, but any useful means of verifying and comparing them seems far out of our reach.
Indeed it is difficult, but I would highly suggest not being too empirically minded about abstract concepts like these. What conceptual frameworks and methods are useful in one field (e.g. quantification and measurements in the sciences) do not carry over to another necessarily. Human societal structures and phenomena are complex and would be more difficult to make sense of were it not for useful works like these.
>So, why all this study of the Heideggers, the Lacans, the Derridas. What does it really contribute to humanity?
One answer is tradition given these are thinkers part of significant and established schools of thought, and another is that there simply are contemporary scholars that find value in furthering and fleshing out the (usually dense) systems of thought and frameworks. Modern psychology for example has come about from philosophical and psychoanalysis frameworks, some of which are still explored and furthered alongside empirical investigations.
I might be mistaken, but it feels as if your post fails to wrap itself around the idea that not all human knowledge need not be something that contributes to practical or immediate assistance to humans or their productivity. And that instead, sometimes, it can be simply related towards the pursuit and sake of knowledge itself.
>And that instead, sometimes, it can be simply related towards the pursuit and sake of knowledge itself.
But is what we get from Heidegger "knowledge"? Or is it the intricate and imprecise fantastical construction of one (perhaps brilliant) mind? Does it amount to anything more knowledge-producing than a Jackson Pollack painting?
You're getting repeatedly downvoted but I think you have a point here that could have been articulated with less snobbery.
There's many folks here who grew up on videogames and most likely find it to have been a vehicle for meaningful experiences that are to some extent comparable to some of the things you've listed (for example, often videogames have social dimensions to them where lifelong connections are made).
I find you more agreeable with your emphasis on artistic value however towards developing a person. While it is true videogames are an artistic medium as well, the vast breadth of human art and knowledge/ wisdom lie in more established mediums that have been around for longer such as literature and music.
Videogames certainly have the potential to provide artistic value that is comparable to this long accumulated pile, but this is no easy task, pleasure and relaxation aside.
It's unfortunate that most of these descriptions appear to be vague and sparse of any details that would convince a neutral reader that solutions borne out of this particular mention of an indigenous cultural system would be the correct course of action.
Of course it is important to consider viewpoints and concerns that aren't biased by western imperialist attitudes, but this comes off as arguing a course of action solely based on a more recently appetizing sentiment regarding solutions for such poltical/social/enviormental issues.
It seems quite rational a response to the decisions taken by a larger neighboring nation’s state unexpectedly increasing hostility.
reply