<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>HON 201 PADLET by Andrew Hutto</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO</link>
      <description>Groovy Groovy
</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2017-09-09 20:26:05 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2024-08-12 10:17:13 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Camus, Myth of Sisyphus </title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/186109671</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>A contemporary of Sartre, Albert Camus is often included among the swath of existential philosophers. Although he rejected this title, there are several themes of his philosophy that draw from if not embody existential underpinnings. In Camus' most accessible work of philosophy, The Myth of Sisyphus, he portrays human existence as ultimately futile. Drawing from the Greek myth of the same name, Camus portrays humanity as condemned to pushing a boulder up a mountain only to have it roll back for them to repeat the task the next day. This is life says Camus, a perpetual struggle against a meaningless and indifferent world. In his essay, Camus opens with one of the most evocative lines in literature, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide". Camus spends the rest of the essay examining why the world is "Absurd" and subsequently defends the will to live and rejects suicide as a viable alternative. To Camus suicide represents an Absurd action and instead of escaping our fate we must enjoy the struggle. We must rebel against our status as creatures devoid of purpose and meaning. Instead, we should live life in such a way to acknowledge the absurd and rebel against it. To this end, Camus concludes that we must imagine Sisyphus and by extension ourselves as happy. For this is the only control we have, we have the undeniable freedom to be happy, to scorn the gods with our rebellion and ultimately become absurd heroes, but heroes nonetheless.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVdF0k4DN1U" />
         <pubDate>2017-09-09 22:10:27 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/186109671</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Ken Ham and Darwin Day</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/188188652</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>As noted in the classroom discussion, Darwin remains a polarizing figure. Beloved by many secularists and equally scorned by fundamentalists, Darwin's theory is both divisive and groundbreaking. The example noted below demonstrates this principle quite succinctly. .The article in reference comes from the organization 'Answers in Genisis'. The article is a defense of Ken Ham's made up holiday, 'Darwin Was Wrong Day'. The new holiday happens to fall on the federally proposed "Darwin Day". It seems as if both sides make Darwin into a larger than life figure. Those in favor tend to fetishize his work and make it the figurehead of science, while his detractors tend to believe Darwin was an 'Anti-god' bigot hellbent on destroying religion. Neither of these is fair to Darwin. His work in undoubtedly important, but it is neither an infallible gospel of science or an anti-god polemic that will lead to the unraveling of society as we know it. Darwin was more simply a naturalist who observed the world and made predictions and theories as to why he encountered the evidence he did. The polarization of Darwin is entirely unnecessary and hinders thinkers on both sides from seriously engaging with his ideas.  &nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/ken-ham-declares-darwin-was-wrong-day/" />
         <pubDate>2017-09-17 02:51:08 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/188188652</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Freud and PsuedoScience </title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/190436072</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Considered by many to be among the forefathers of contemporary psychology, Sigmund Freud is both inseparable from the public perception of psychology while his theories are seemingly rejected by most modern psychologists. The video linked below helps to understand the major error in Freud's methodology. As the philosopher, Karl Popper would point out, Freud was creating an irrefutable theory in which past experiences could always justify his present hypothesis. This, however, is not in step with the proper scientific methodology. Fortunately, modern psychology has moved in part to resemble the more stringent process of its academic neighbors and dropped the flimsy and oftentimes inconsistent methods of its forefathers. Now the modern psychological research paper must follow a rigorous process that operationalizes variables, makes falsifiable predictions and is necessarily replicable. Karl Popper gives a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience&nbsp;and provides a foothold to better understand the validity of information.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ" />
         <pubDate>2017-09-23 16:53:04 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/190436072</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Jesus was a Commie !?</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/192721539</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>As mentioned in class there is a sense that Jesus' message was fundamentally opposed to capitalism. This interpretation runs in stark contrast to much of western Christianity and particularly the Christianity Weber links to Capitalism's rise. The below clip offers an interesting look at what an ex-Soviet believes about that question. It seems from his anecdote that Jesus' teachings were more in line with the economics of the USSR rather than the materialism in the US. Now, this may be a gross overreach but there are some verses that seem to indicate the sheer wickedness of wealth in Jesus' view and offer the only prescription being total devotion to God. This is in some ways how a Marxist views the world. A Marxist would agree that to better form a cohesive society we should give up some material comfort for a greater goal, that goal being the society at large. It is interesting how much of modern Christianity insists on maintaining more wealth and comfort than billions of less fortunate individuals, this seems to be in direct contradiction to the New Testament's warning to the rich oppressors. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pybVfIuCTAM" />
         <pubDate>2017-10-01 03:13:17 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/192721539</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Sticks by George Saunders </title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/194953449</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>With the midterm this week and having already posted on Marx, I took the liberty to share my favorite short story. A mere 392 words, Sticks evokes better than anything I have ever read, the feeling of the Absurd. The story is written by Syracuse creative writing professor George Saunders and comes in his collection, Tenth of December. Often considered a Post-postmodernist, George Saunders' fiction grapples with the meaningless apathy that dwells within us. Having been a disciple of Tobias Wolfe and David Foster Wallace it figures that his writing is coated in 'philosophy' and poignant questions about the nature of existence. The story linked is a wonderful example of the view that some contemporary philosophers seem to be hinting at; that life is an utterly meaningless pursuit and even when meaning is constructed it is gone, just like the stick in the yard. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="http://www.unm.edu/~gmartin/535/Sticks.htm" />
         <pubDate>2017-10-08 02:16:03 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/194953449</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Chomsky v. Foucault</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/196986674</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>One of the issues with Hicks' portrayal of postmodernism is his sweeping portrayal of modern academia. Certainly, Postmodernism was/is a popular philosophy among leading academics, however, this does an injustice to the public intellectuals in opposition to postmodernism. In the debate linked, Noam Chomsky is debating the postmodern idea of Foucault as it pertains to human nature. Although the debate is hosted in Dutch and the answers are in French and English, the subtitles are available for the entirety in English. Though lengthy, this debate gives a nice taste of two prominent 20th-century arguing from vastly different epistemological assumptions. Foucault, a Postmodernist, and Poststructuralist, is against Chomsky's premise that human nature is something we could study and define. Chomsky a blatant detracter from his Postmodern colleagues has gone as far as calling Postmodernism as an 'obstructionist' philosophy. This debate posits two interesting and well-respected positions&nbsp;going head to head in their proponents own words. If you have the time it is a great resource. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8" />
         <pubDate>2017-10-13 23:59:07 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/196986674</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Truth? </title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/199312924</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Not to belabor George Saunders' work, but I thought it necessary to include another selection of his. The linked passage comes from the novella Pastoralia and is written toward the end of the story. The selection comes in the form of a fax from the head of the corporation to the employees because rumors have been going around. This passage strikes in the same vein as Nietzche because it correlates truth with cohesion among a group. Truth in this context is whatever makes the company look good and helps them 'win'. Saunders in his fiction masterfully displays these rich philosophical topics in such imaginative stories and bitingly satirical scenes.<br> </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://padletuploads.blob.core.windows.net/prod/219625899/5a002c935b94df1bf34bc566619db203/Because_what_is_truth_.docx" />
         <pubDate>2017-10-22 02:42:07 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/199312924</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Rorty Interview</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/201439933</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>This clip is from an interview with Richard Rorty in his own words defining terms like 'Pragmatism' and 'Truth'. This interview is helpful to get a grasp of what Rorty is referring to in his written works. He makes an appeal to drop the lofty notions of previous philosophical traditions and instead focus on the limitations of our knowledge. From that vantage point, the Pragmatic is able to truly come to grips with the world around them. Rorty also gives useful definitions of 'Truth' saying that any objective truth is impossible, rather truth is a word we use to justify our beliefs. Rorty echoes the sentiment of other postmodernists in his focus on subjective truth and his post-structural epistemology. Hopeful this clip of Rorty is of benefit&nbsp;and hearing him define his own terms is certainly helpful for me to grasp his philosophy. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nTRunosX8w" />
         <pubDate>2017-10-28 20:36:18 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/201439933</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Bryan John Appleby - Costanoan Bones</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/203568618</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In the light of postmodernism and its effect on modern times, I have to look no further than this excellent song from Bryan John Appleby. Appleby weaves a tale throughout his record 'A Narrow Valley' that threatens western California. This song is his commentary about how American expansion and capitalism have trambled the remnants of the past. He sings about the roads we have built are on top of the bones from the Costanoan Indians. He then relays this to present times in which he visions Abaddon, the Biblical representation of destruction, being visited upon us. The piece is a reflection of the postmodern way of interpreting power structures and not always progress as chronology. Appleby is consistent through his discography of this deconstruction of previous narratives and always a delight to listen too. Below I will include the lyrics to help better understand the song. Enjoy!<br><br>Bryan John Appleby - <em>Costanoan Bones<br></em><br></div><div>Buried on the valley floor&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Costanoan Bones&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Are getting pounded by our bright new roads&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;We always kick it under the rug&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Digging deep the roustabouts&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Recklessly keep driving down&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Now bottlenecked with no way out&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;I think we might have gone too far&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;All along we had it coming&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Now grab a coat and get in the car&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;There’s nothing left for us in California&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;We gotta move on&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;The winded eucalyptus bend&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;And snapping in a heavy hand&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;The bratty child too fat to fend away the wild dogs&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;<br>And all along we had it coming&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;Now Abaddon is moving quick&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;It’s coming down for good in California&nbsp;<br>&nbsp;We finally fucked it up</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj2CnGW7b3A" />
         <pubDate>2017-11-04 20:20:11 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/203568618</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Post Modernism and Fundamentalism are strange bedfellows? </title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/205937878</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>If one needed proof of postmodernism extant presence in contemporary dialogue they could listen to this podcast published just a few days ago. In Sam Harris' podcast, he interviews author and journalist Kurt Anderson about his new book, Fantasyland. The podcast is a bit lengthy but offers some unique inside into America's propensity for unfounded beliefs. The more relevant aspect of the podcast happens in the middle and back half of the conversation when Harris asks about the role of Postmodernism in America's inclination to capriciously held beliefs. Anderson makes an interesting comparison when he cites postmodernists and religious fundamentalists as 'strange bedfellows', in that each camp makes unverified assumptions about reality. The dialogue is quite engaging and gives food for thought when we learn about postmodernism in a religious context.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FDpjKdlIxA" />
         <pubDate>2017-11-12 03:13:58 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/205937878</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Has Socialism lost it&#39;s meaning?</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/208333140</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In his textbook, Hick spends much of his time linking postmodernism and socialism. He argues that the acedemic left and their unsound epistomologies are an attempt to defend the failed notion of socialism. In this video, Noam Chomsky clears some of the muddy waters surrounding traditional socialism. It is also important to remeber that Chomsky is a notable critque of the postmodern movement and has even debated Foucoult as linked in a previous Padelt. Chomsky is not defending or redefing socialism with semantics or postmodern appeals he is using a rather modernistic defense in much of his work. This shows that Hicks' chapter seems to over emphaize this linkage and extrapolates socialism to a postmodern only movement. It also refutes claims made by Hicks that Socialism is akin to Stalinist Russia or Mao's China. Theese regimes, in Chomsky's view are decidely non-socailistic </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ" />
         <pubDate>2017-11-18 02:46:06 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/208333140</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Truth in a post truth America</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/210085940</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>If you have not seen it yet, CNN released an add attempting to defend their reputation. CNN and other media and news outlets have been been under fire in recent years even being explicatly attacked by the Trump administration as "fake news". This add hightlghts an attempt to reenter the political conversation on factual claims and substantiated reporting. However, this commercial has been parodied counless times by thoose disagreing with CNN's legitimacy. Now it may not be the highminded acedemic postmodernism that makes some distrust current journalism but the legitimacy of authority and the facts they present has rarely seen this scrutuny.&nbsp; CNN's response echoes enlighment ideology becasue its claim that certain realities can be understood by humans. Rorty or Derrida may be critical of this approcah and take issue on the grounds of subjective language games. Not that this is the belief of the radical right or Trump's administration but it is an interesting case study as to how certain ideologies are co-opted for expedianciency and self protection.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxuuIPcQ9_I" />
         <pubDate>2017-11-25 23:39:56 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/210085940</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Adams by George Saunders</title>
         <author>ahutto91</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/212559407</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Before I begin I would like to issue a warning concerning the content of this post. The story posted contains profanity, illusions to pedophilia and overt violence. If this isn't for you please use your discretion. I am confident that Saunder's work is not meant to exploit or be exhibitionist but he often writes about the underbelly and macabre of society, so it comes with the territory.<br><br>Adams is a story rooted in 'postmodernism'. It bucks convention style and formal linguistic choices and has a strong political message underneath the text. In the story, the narrator finds Adams in his house standing outside his children's bedroom and then proceeds to beat him and subsequently become paranoid about Adams after he returns to his house. The story then unravels revealing the narrator's own hatred and his proclivity to violence.&nbsp;<br><br>Within this short story, Saunders tackles some of the troublesome aspects of human nature. How we enact revenge, How we learn to dehumanize, and how we justify our actions and but a few the reader is left to wrestle with. The postmodern nature of the story allows the reader to respond as freely as they wish and the subject matter is a deconstruction of popular narratives. Furthermore, Adams is also an embodiment of postmodern literature's leftist temperament. As a keen reader might realize the similarities between Adams and the invasion of Iraq. Simply move the 's' in Adams to the front and you get 'Sadam'. This is no coincidence, Adams was written during the intensity of the Iraq war and Saunders was clear to draw the reader to questions about America's conduct in the war.<br>Regardless of your politics, Saunders has difficult questions to be grappled with and casts them in splendid voices and unique projections. Harkening back to our Thursday, I reflected on Gadot and what makes art 'postmodern'. It is a tricky line and I am bereft to classify any literature but one could make a case for Saunders&nbsp;as the clear American voice writing post-post-modern fiction.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/08/09/adams" />
         <pubDate>2017-12-03 03:32:02 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/ahutto91/ANDREWHUTTO/wish/212559407</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
