I'm as critical of the postmodernist movement as anybody, and Mr. Hicks takes some good whacks at the bad guys in this book, but I have a few complaints.

1. Terminology: Hicks usues some pretty non-standard terms in his descriptions of various philosophical movements. Most notably, when he refers to "modern" philosophers he means "enlightenment" philosophers rather than the usual Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Fichte, Wittgenstein, Russell, and the rest. Everyone I have ever talked ot or read has referred to the Kant (or perhaps Hume) through the 1970's or so as "modern" with those coming after that as "postmodern".

2. The tone and subject matter change a fair bit from one part of the book to another. At times he is speaking in fairly academic philosophical language. At other times it's a very historical/opinionated generalizations (mostly ones I agree with, but probably not very convincing to those who aren't already on his side). And at times it's assertions about the psychology and sociological state of the Left. Again, I generally agree with his conclusions (which tend to be nice and pithy) but I doubt anyone is going to be convinved to change his mind from something like this.

--Brian

Hicks is a professional philosopher and some of his historical stuff is a bit hard going, but it's worth it to find out why the generous Old Left has become a New Left that is so narrow-minded and vicious. His parallel between the loss of Christian and Socialist faith is cheeky and convincing. I shall follow Stephen Hicks's further career with interest.