@@iamleoooo Zizek is the only leftist philosopher left with a functioning brain. The tear emanates from relief.
@michaelwright8896
3 ай бұрын
@@dannyarcher6370 No. I believe all the living ones do have functioning brains. Zizek however is one that doesnt make very much contribution.
@600micsofacid
7 жыл бұрын
Chomsky demolishes postmodernism. "Paris, the center of the rot" ...damn
@Epiousios18
Жыл бұрын
Chomsky calls Postmodernism cringe: 3:40
@lucasrandel8589
4 жыл бұрын
This is why Jordan Peterson and other folk of the idw should take Chomsky more seriously, he's been dealing with this stuff way longer than they have.
@TheCloud175
3 жыл бұрын
The IDW folks are not intellectually honest.
@BuGGyBoBerl
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheCloud175 whats IDW?
@TheCloud175
3 жыл бұрын
@@BuGGyBoBerl The “intellectual dark web,” jordan peterson, joe rogan, dave rubin, ben shapiro, the wenstein bros, sam harris, and a few others. Altho sam harris did recently disavow the IDW for their support of trump’s election conspiracies.
@BuGGyBoBerl
3 жыл бұрын
@@TheCloud175 alright. thanks for that info.
@grmpf
3 жыл бұрын
Have you tried reading Maps of Meaning? How is that experience any different to that of reading those Chomsky criticises here?
@600micsofacid
7 жыл бұрын
"it's so embarrassing you cringe when you read it " lmao
@TakishidoKamen9193
10 жыл бұрын
He started saying that "postmodernism has had a terrible effect on the Third World" after his visit to Brazil in the 1990s. I don't think that's a coincidence.
@HarryS77
9 жыл бұрын
***** Could you elaborate?
@GamingBlake2002
3 жыл бұрын
@@HarryS77 Given that it's been 7 years, I'm gonna bet no...
@rahilbashir6652
3 жыл бұрын
I was puzzled by his statement re: Third World. I assumed po-mo is equally harmful to developed world, but having been at the heart of this cult in my university in Delhi, I have fully realised how detrimental this non sense is to the developing world.
@hamzariazuddin424
4 жыл бұрын
I love Chomsky. I am quite left leaning and read all these fancy high brow books, yes mainly by the french, Derridas, Foucaults, Baudrillards etc...And I enjoy reading them as I enjoy Fiction...the key is never to take what they say too seriously...as a leisurely past time fine...but lets not pretend they are saying something so profound and untold...Chomsky is spot on that all this pontification is fine for people in the developed..but for real issues that pertain to the emerging countries...its actually problematic..as their academics get caught up in this nonsense... Chomsky is a true thinker..he doesn't just jump to which ever side necessary...he actually forms an opinion no matter what others think of him. Yes he is a beacon for the left..but he will not backdown for calling out the idiocies on our side too...That is so rare..most people fit neatly into a predictable box and will defend their 'side' with no account to hypocrisy
@GenteelCretin
2 жыл бұрын
...how do you read social theory, culture theory, and historiography like fiction? Do you ever find it ironic that Chomsky dislikes modern globalism given that his opinion on postmodern thought is that it inhibits _intellectual_ globalism from a linguistics standpoint?
@iammclovin1672
3 жыл бұрын
The greatest speaker of all time. So thankful I learned of his work
@davefischer2344
7 жыл бұрын
god i fucking love this. Getting past the constant bullshit that is causing so much chaos and confusion.
@fascistphilosophy5649
10 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for your critique on post-modernism. Academic philosophy is just rampantly corrupt with their stupid bullshit. I really takes a genuine intellectual to see through their crap.
@diogenesdescendant
10 жыл бұрын
Academic philosophy? Do you mean analytical- or continental philosophy?
@fascistphilosophy5649
10 жыл бұрын
I mean Academic, which actually creates this continental/analytical divide. (It shouldn't be there, if you are a philosophical 'purist'.) All the great names in the history of philosophy were great thinkers -- so many of them true philosophers. Now, go through the last few editions of the academic journals and see what you find. THAT is academic philosophy.
@MoeGreensRightEye
10 жыл бұрын
You don't necessarily have to be a genuine intellectual to see through their crap. I can see through their crap and I'm an idiot
@96lucasb
2 жыл бұрын
@@MoeGreensRightEye Haha
@SciRaider
Жыл бұрын
It's such an honor to hear Prof. Chomsky say the word 'Cringe', based redpilled
@Samgurney88
5 жыл бұрын
The Jean Bricmont and Alak Sokal books he's referring to are 'Intellectual Impostures' and 'Fashionable Nonsense'. I'd seriously recommend them, purely for entertainment value if nothing else.
@jonathanmsmith
11 жыл бұрын
Jim Walker, the book is titled "Fashionable Nonsense," and the authors are Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.
@Scriptavolant
12 жыл бұрын
I have to agree with Chomsky about the nonsense: some time ago I was discussing with a postmodernism follower, and I pointed out something about the moral progress of Western civilization, something about the fact that we did things that today would be considered morally unacceptable. He answered that philosophically "moral progress" is a nonsensical construction, since it implies the existence of an external world, an assumption which has been proven wrong by many philosophers. I mean..come on
@clarkbowler157
9 ай бұрын
What you mentioned is a form of solipsism, for which they can argue if they want, however it is not necessarily an idea associated with postmodernism. The whole critique of "grand narratives" deals with the possibility of single universal interpretation/meaning of progress. Critique of grand narratives does not imply critique of progress/change itself.
@fattony638
8 жыл бұрын
Let's set something straight here. Postmodernist is basically an umbrella term used to lump together thinkers who had very little to do with each other, that sometimes actually rejected the label and that worked in a variety of fields. Like many lines of thought it influenced and shaped current epistemological considerations for the better in a number of fields. Because, like with most lines of thought, you take some and you leave some, mostly because they're part right and part wrong. The entire dismissal or acceptance of a body of work I think is suspicious and probably rooted in a lack of critique/self-critique. Now, Chomsky might argue (and I don't know to what extent he's right) that the right parts consisted of truisms, yet it appears it did take those people, and others, to shed light on things that were in fact not considered, truism or not. In fact, I would challenge the notion that what appears self-evident to Chomsky actually is to everyone else; his point on women in science is case in point, in that most people wouldn't even have a second thought about it being an issue, let alone see it as reflecting power structures. After all, a lot of people still hold the belief that science has no internal politics, which is more of a utopian ideal than a reality. Anyways, the postmodern rejection of science has now itself rightly been rejected in most, if not all, of social sciences, while its ideas on the politics of knowledge are still relevant and applicable, and actually very important, including in natural sciences to an extent (think of financing, publication, value judgments, including research choices, etc). For instance, in my own field, namely anthropology, postmodernism played a key role in criticizing inadequate methods and developing more reliable ways of ethnographic inquiry. In a way it basically forced people to rethink what they took for granted and helped us progress. That's why I'm kind of surprised by the feelings people seem to have on this issue. Postmodern thought represents a challenge on sciences which in turn makes them stronger and more reliable. Let's also remember that postmodernist thinkers were not the only ones criticizing scientific epistemology, especially in relation to natural sciences (in fact most of them did not directly address it). Not even a century ago logical positivism was the norm, and a lot of (misinformed) people who value science today still think in its terms. So I'd advise to be careful and not go to the other extreme, namely scientism. Using science also means understanding its workings, its limitations and its ever evolving nature in terms of both knowledge and the means of acquiring it. All the while not elevating science to some sort holy panacea, at which point it just stops being science and becomes at best the very rhetoric postmodernists criticized or at worst some cult where people accept ''experts'' claims on a purely authoritative basis, which, I would argue, is pretty easy to come across around youtube, the internet and society at large.
@adam5887
7 жыл бұрын
I don't understand his point on truisms either. Science would seek to QUESTION truisms in order to validate our underlying assumptions rather than ASSUME them to be right prima facie. I don't see how using social science ("polysyllables") in that pursuit is mere aggrandizing. Rather, that would seem to be a major outlet for social sciences. Proving what we think we know to be right or - even more interestingly - WRONG.
@ajblum58
6 жыл бұрын
I'm not sure that logical positivism was ever the norm. It was the "hot" school of philosophy in the 20's, 30's, 40's, but you wouldn't find a majority of philosophers (or, especially scientists) who even then, say, thought moral or aesthetic claims were statements devoid of meaning. I think that post-modernists were engaging in a straw-man argument if they presented themselves as coming to the rescue against those wicked logical positivists.
@resume1009
6 жыл бұрын
fattony638 so, you are saying in summary to be skeptical about “expert opinion” in a long winded crescendo of rhetorical banter, of course? How does any of this so called analysis help society at any turn at all except to give self appointed thinkers a debate club to exercise their enormous egos and inflated opinions if their own intellect? Here is a “truism”. If you are outside and uncovered when it is raining outside, you will get wet.
@jamspandex4973
10 ай бұрын
You state "his point on women in science is case in point, in that most people wouldn't even have a second thought about it being an issue, let alone see it as reflecting power structures. After all, a lot of people still hold the belief that science has no internal politics, which is more of a utopian ideal than a reality." Clearly you are not a scientist, as every thing that you say in that sentence is as wrong as it can be. Perhaps by "a lot of people" you mean non-scientists. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that science is *full* of internal politic, and that yes, the lack of women is a real problem, and is indeed a result of the power structures of old, many of which still persist. However, it is still true that "science" as an abstract thing, is the best way that we have of determining the truth, and that despite all the failings that "scientists" may have, the "science" itself is still about as objective as it can be, and is by it's nature self correcting. There may be internal politics, and sometimes it can get in the way of the path, but in the end, the science is still what is important, and that is what matters. All you discussion of "scientism" is really the sort of thing that we hear non-scientists saying all the time. And do you know the *best* way to avoid anything like that ? It is to actually edicate people in "science" from an early age, and by that I do not mean teach them all about "scientific facts", but to teach them abiut the scientific method, to inculcate from an early age about logic, rational thought and how toi evaluate evidence. What you are talking about is a religious way of thinking about science, and no scientist, or at least no good scientist, would ever tell you that this was a good idea. And this is a major difference between sciuentistst and the sort of "strong program of science" post modernists that Chomsky is discussing, which is a the post modernist will say that everything is subjective, and science has all these human issue, so is itself just subjective and can't be believed, and scuentists shouldn;t be trusted, but scientists will tell you that yes, observations are subjective, and science has all these human issues, and so you shouldn't trust scientists, and as a scientist, you shouldn't even TRUST YOURSELF, as you can easily be wrong, or mistaken, so you have to trust the world around you, and trust the mechanism of science that it is self correcting. The problem with the "scientism" argument that you make, is that is is too closely alinged with misconceptions amongst the public of what science actually is. For instance, you might often hear people complaining thet "This scientist said this, and this other one said that, so they can'yt even agree amongst themselves, so we shouldn't believe any of them" which totally misunderstands the point of scientific discourse and how it works, since the fact that scientists can disagree, is one of the principle strengths. And youe "scientism" is justy the oposite of that, where you blindly accept what any "scientist" says. An informed person would understand how science works, and would understand that there is established science, relativity, evolution etc, and there is cutting edge science, and that cutting edge science has a lot of unknowns, and a lot of disaggrements, but you can not take all that is said completely seriously, but that the more establishes science, is by and large unasailable and has been so well established by all available evidence, that it would be foolish and demonstrably wrong, to actually question it. That is not scientism, that is just the honest evaluation of the evidence.
@fattony638
10 ай бұрын
@jamspandex4973 HI jam, I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm far from disagreeing on science being the best method we have to approximate our understanding of reality, especially compared to religion. Clarifying this I think is especially important considering our comments being written respectively before and after the covid pandemic, which threw science into a crisis of confidence it didn't deserve and that is. frankly. extremely alarming. Now, when discussing postmodernism, we have to take into account the historical context into which it arose, and the fact it actually isn't an actual ideology -- as I stated, most thinkers who are said to be postmodernist never used the term and some explicitly rejected it. The point I was making concerning blind faith in science and ignoring internal politics, which were aptly raised by such thinkers in their time, was not aimed at science per se, but at a way of naively idolizing science which actually resembles religion. The reason I felt compelled to comment on such a phenomenon is because I witnessed it in interactions on social media as well as in academia, as did the aforementioned thinkers. Of course, a lot of contemporary scientists will readily and correctly acknowledge science as a fallible social enterprise where power structures can be obstacles, but the point is such self-critiques weren't always, historically, that forthcoming. In other words, some -- like yourself -- will readily admit those obstacles and try to account for them -- I don't deny it. Yet, some did and worse, still try to deny those potential failings -- maybe less so today than before, but again the critiques we are talking about are decades old. Anyhow, let's just say the point only aims at the people still holding the bag, so to speak -- more people than you might think, which says more about them than about science itself. As for the feminist critique, again, you take some, you leave some. Here's an interesting example. For a time gametes were thought, in the scientific community, to be active in the masculine case and passive in the feminine case. Yet we know today this conception was an incorrect result of cultural interpretation of biological data. What eventually made us aware of such a mistake? well obviously science itself as a self-correcting enterprise. Yet, science, as a social enterprise, still needs to be pushed and critiqued in such a way to not be complacent with itself -- complacency is a very human trait and science is nothing if it isn't human. Sometimes it can do so from the inside, like each of us who is sometimes aware of its own fallibility. And yet, some other times, it sure needs some pressure from the outside, like each of us who sometimes need to be reminded not to be too cocky. "Postmodernism" played such a role -- though again, in general, you take some and you leave some (some did go too far in my opinion). So yeah, we agree any good scientist _should_ think in such terms, yet point is in a lot of people's experience a lot of scientists still don't and a lot of non-scientists are especially worse in this respect. This should be acknowledged and pushed against.
@Hen-jm8zj
9 жыл бұрын
I so want to listen to this guy but every time I hear his voice I just go to sleep
@Thedarkknight2244
6 жыл бұрын
He’s a great writer, it’s a pursuit to listen to him tho
@WhatDaHeckIsThat
5 жыл бұрын
I'm sorry, but it definitely is his voice. I'm listening to Manufacturing Consent on audiobook and I can digest the information pretty easily, but when I'm listening to Chomsky himself, I just can't follow him.
@PedroTricking
5 жыл бұрын
I like his voice. It's not as blemished by emotion as a lot of other people who talk about real world issues. It's the appropriate tone to talk about that kind of thing.
@susacp1
9 жыл бұрын
Lol, that was awesome! Thanks again Chompsky, you da man!
@charlesnwarren
6 жыл бұрын
Lower your voice a little more, Chomsky. We can almost hear you.
@Al-himathy
5 жыл бұрын
My nigga Chomsky 💯🔥
@Salndin24
2 жыл бұрын
I got my MA in Anthropology and Chomsky is right. I remember discussing Marx with a classmate and he kept repeating "Marx was a materialist, he was a materialist" I really did not know what it meant so I asked him and he sheepishly said he didn't know. The seminars were just circle jerks with people using big fancy words that had absolutely no meaning.
@k.butler8740
2 жыл бұрын
This is a super important point you make, but also lots of physics students can't take an differential equation and express it in discrete terms. There is a different skill set between relating complex ideas to each other and distilling them into simple terms
@plaidchuck
2 жыл бұрын
Materialism isn’t a very complex concept in philosophy though..
@FrenchPonens
8 жыл бұрын
When he talked about intellectuals in the third world saying postmodernist absurdities, I shit in pants laughing.
@stoprainingonme
11 жыл бұрын
See Chomsky on Religion, Science and Human Nature for the full interview. It's part of a series called the Chomsky Sessions
@mrkeogh
5 жыл бұрын
The book Chomsky references might be "Higher Superstition" by Gross & Levitt. It's a fascinating read!
@camillethiry-detour5896
Жыл бұрын
The book is by Alan Sokal et Jean Bricmont, and its title is “Intellectual Impostures : Postmodern Philosophers' Abuse of Science”. It’s a great read. The specific joker that Chomsky talks about is Bruno Latour.
@AleichemSholem
13 жыл бұрын
If we compare the two schools of continental philosophy and anglo-saxon & American analytical philosophy, it's clear that the continental philosophy (postmodernism) the latter school has contributed much more to understanding repression, sociological affairs, political causes in the third world etc. Foucault's contribution, whom Chomsky debated in the 70s, exceeds any narrow analytical mathematical formula in the social sciences and has probably "helped" the third world much more.
@derekrushe
Жыл бұрын
The only thing Foucult did in the 3rd world was to rape boys in Northern Africa. Him and his other French post modernist were a bunch of pedophiles.
@BuGGyBoBerl
4 жыл бұрын
spot on. its about sounding nice and smart and lots of insecurities. i never understand why though. natural science/math/engineers dont use that words to sound smart, its their vocabulary for real problems (in general). the issue here is that many people dont bother too much about it and you need to put in some work to get to a certain depth to understand it. however if you dont bother you cant understand. its not mainly because its super complex or needs absurd IQ. its simply because people dont put in enough effort and it often leaves the field of first hand experience (you dont see quantum physics in your daily life while you see whats going on in politics etc). so dont be insecure that you dont understand their stuff. its not because they are special, its because they work there. you also dont expect to build your own bath and do the plumber jobs perfectly. not your profession. so why get insecure when you dont understand it or when they win big prizes. after all our society heavily relies on them. ps: humanities arent obsolete by any means. they are needed but dont expect to be the same as stem fields.
@MarilynMalkovich
3 жыл бұрын
Bold talk for a man whose most famous thesis is, in monosyllables, that humans can speak languages.
@BuGGyBoBerl
3 жыл бұрын
at least you tried to troll
@ogunsiron2
12 жыл бұрын
I think that stuff was very popular up until the 70s or the 80s. It's outmoded now. Though as Chomsky mentions, that strain of thought held the spotlight in France longer than pretty much anywhere else.
@yosemite-e2v
4 жыл бұрын
I don't remember hearing the distortion that is now audible when I watched this over a year ago.
@zuesr3277
7 жыл бұрын
chomsky's department his work is definitely prestigious and others too
@carolinemuir5068
11 жыл бұрын
One last thought in reference to your pointing out of page 376. I read this point on history and relativism being used to "debunk" objectivity as pointing to a very small segment of postmodern thought - nihilism(of which I am not an adherent). Just as in science, there is a spectrum of postmodern thought. The scientific fundamentalists, much like their religious counterparts, have difficulty with ambiguity. The world must be black and white as well as aligned with their own taxonomic ranks.
@lucabrasi7999
6 жыл бұрын
This is why Jordan Peterson sounded so familiar when he started to talk about french intellectuals being dedicated stalinists/maoists.
@reallynow6276
3 ай бұрын
Except Peterson shows the same tendencies as post-modernists. Exept it is right leaning.
@julianaboolean
11 жыл бұрын
All things have vagueness and clarity. Numbers break down at a certain scale just like words do. I mean yes, simple numbers work, but numbers can be complex and have more room for misunderstanding their meaning. For example the meaning of numbers is interpreted by a reader, and continuously checked alongside the math. Math happens to be good at showing meanings. Both literary critics and scientist follow this model in math form. This math or descriptive model is science.
@carolinemuir5068
11 жыл бұрын
Since you have read the book then you will understand the excerpt from my paper: "In the radical pursuit of the will to will-lessness, mechanical objectivity was thought to be the method through which the self could be fully suppressed, resulting in pure objective knowing. (continued in the next post)
@xxFortunadoxx
11 жыл бұрын
When I think of debate, I think of a dialectic between two opposing worldviews in which the goal ideally is to convince each other that that they are mistaken and/or that your position is correct. What you're referring to sounds like an argument, which sadly, is what many debates devolve into these days. A prime example of this is the "debate" between Alan Durshowitz and Norman Finkelstein.
@tofinoguy
7 жыл бұрын
During my doctoral program I was verbally beaten up badly for my comments about postmodernism. Gosh, I wish I had known about Chomsky then.
@MrBangbling
11 жыл бұрын
Ok I respect your point about artists having little financial leverage.I am happy to be proved wrong...In NZ where I live the university trained artists all seem to be doing "research" on arcane matters relating to worthy sociological "issues" ordained as such by the academic institution..... Maybe that is not the case in New York where you live?...My personal experience of "postmodernism" is the dreary word count and discipline of academic writing...
@TheSqueakyWaffle
11 жыл бұрын
As a mathematician, I can tell you that the point of all our jargon is to make absolutely concise and rigorous intuitive and easy to understand ideas. Other sciences see the superficial jargon and think we're trying to prove theorems via obscurity, so they attempt to copy this, which ends up being a disaster in the long run, when they find that every word is left up to redefinition by every author.
@xxFortunadoxx
12 жыл бұрын
Cartesian doubt is not limited to what Descartes thought about radical skepticism. It has evolved quite a bit in several centuries. The general principle would be postmodernism's main critique of meta-narratives. Science would be considered a meta-narrative in a post-modernist perspective.
@GenteelCretin
2 жыл бұрын
Chomsky's generalizations about postmodernism and continental philosophy make perfect sense for someone who refuses to engage with it, but as a linguist, it's frustrating that he talks about concepts relevant to modern discourse using the definitions of enlightenment-era thought.
@julianduncan5942
7 жыл бұрын
I like post-modernism's distrust of meta-narratives and teleological history, because I see this kind of thinking as essentially utopian and quasi-religious (I'm thinking of the myth of progress, and blissful end-of-history type narratives). Post-modern aesthetics can also be interesting. Chomsky makes some really good points though. I think we're beginning to see some of the post-modernist fervor from the 1980s and 90s be tempered to an extent, but there are definitely some very far reaching conclusions that still come out of a lot of post-modernist criticism. I think post-modernism has done a lot to open up new and freer avenues to thinking about art and culture. This has had good effects, but in some ways needs to be reigned in, especially in regards to the liberties post-modernists sometimes take with science and history. In the end, some things are heteronormative, patriarchal, white, capitalist, social constructs. But not everything. Lol.
@nonindividual
11 жыл бұрын
Where's the rest of the interview!?
@louduva9849
4 жыл бұрын
Julia Kristeva was the 'flaming Maoist'.
@EclecticSceptic
12 жыл бұрын
That would be a good thing to find out, but I don't know. Your point on medicine could be a big part of it.
@yandai9539
5 жыл бұрын
Anyone tell me the name of the anchor/host?
@carolinemuir5068
11 жыл бұрын
However,much like the subjectivity in a low-tech production of a drawing in the medium of lead pencil,the subjectivities in operating and processing mechanical aides to sight were, in the end,just as problematic.Daston and Galison point out that subjectivity of the eye in truth-to-nature is not conquered by mechanical objectivity, but rather problematized by having tolearn "twice over"(184).Mechanical objectivity turns out tobe just another way of seeing, not the portal to the objective reality.
@carolinemuir5068
11 жыл бұрын
How lucky for me that you actually know Peter Galison personally. I would be thrilled to send to him the paper I wrote and from which I quoted below. Let's let Peter decide for himself what he thinks of my take on the book. By the way, did you post this before or after you drank the keg of beer in your photo? ;)
@mothman84
7 жыл бұрын
The clip would make it appear that he gave a complete answer without mentioning America directly as the bad guy. I was confused and disorientated. All I had to do was fish up the whole interview, and things went back to normal.
@blaze34
11 жыл бұрын
What I'm saying is that PMs pose unorthodox ways of criticizing, ways that primes form over content. If we should take such a stance against "common sense" as you say, we would have no point of reference to appraise the production of knowledge. Disregard for modern science and philosophy is acceptable, but when you do PM stuff you can't take even yourself seriously! This I like in guys like Zizek and Baudrillard. They are funny and have no real pretension!
@MrDoremouse
12 жыл бұрын
I'm not saying all philosophy that I can't understand is rubbish, because there are plenty of proper philosophers I can't understand, but some of it DOES sounds like gibberish.Take this from Alex Meinong: ''The absolute enters into but does not undergo transformation and change.'' Huh ?
@BlackSabotage100
12 жыл бұрын
Cool projection bro, do you have another?
@Markdchristoph
7 жыл бұрын
would love for jordan peterson and chomsky to have a discussion
@brendarua01
7 жыл бұрын
Interesting idea, Mark. But it could be a disaster. Peterson and Sam Harris held a major disaster when they had a discussion. I'm don't mean to say Chomsky and Harris are alike in general, but only the results would turn into a couple of dudes trying to out intellectualize each other and get buried in pedantry. I would love to be wrong on this though!
@Markdchristoph
7 жыл бұрын
chomsky and harris' email exchange didn't end so well either, ha.
@hamdoggius
5 жыл бұрын
No they wouldn't. Peterson has a child like view of the world and can't understand the the most basic aspects of the American civil rights movement (see his interview with Jim Jefferies). Chomsky is one of the worlds greatest intellectuals who helped created a whole field of intellectual research. Chomsky would spit Peterson out like an AK fires bullets and leave his followers crying like the victims they pretend to be.
@PedroTricking
5 жыл бұрын
@@hamdoggius Sometimes you Chomsky is not that interesting though, maybe about issues that he considers trivial or just nonsense? Watch him talk about animal rights, or veganism, or free will. He says very very uninteresting things. It's really disappointing. It's possible he would do something similar with Peterson. But it feels like a waste of Chomsky's time to have this debate anyway.
@Zineas
4 жыл бұрын
@Victor Cypert according to a new interview od Chomsky, he seems to not agree with him a lot :)
@oyvindei
12 жыл бұрын
"'The others I don't mention because I don't regard them as even minimally serious (to the extent that I'm familiar with their work, which is very slight). Kristeva I met once. She came to my office to see me about 20 years ago, then some kind of raving Maoist, as I recall. I was never tempted to read further' (31 Mar. 1995)."(1)
@MachYew
13 жыл бұрын
@fede2 Lol at "she visited me.. she was a flaming maoist" .. also what's the famous article chomsky wrote about postmodernism? any idea what its called or where to find it? cheers
@JacobBrownacro
3 жыл бұрын
I feel like Chomsky rambled. I was excited by the title. I want to show my CRT friends what Chomsky has to say but I was left thinking “what did I just watch”? Could anyone enlighten me. What were his main points against postmodernism?
@christopherlees1134
3 жыл бұрын
You have CRT friends?
@cavrak
13 жыл бұрын
I suspect Chomsky is referring to Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science ???
@Duder871
13 жыл бұрын
I think how he points out the hypocracy of criticising western knowledge systems and the pursuit of scientfic truth while striving to appear absolute and scientific.
@EclecticSceptic
12 жыл бұрын
I know, but they are still alive. An example is Alain Badiou. Madness anyway.
@robertdevries1049
8 жыл бұрын
That being said, I can't understand anything Foucault writes, and my impression of him, and many others from that school of thought, is that their theories are more oppressively Stalinist that the most ardent old school bolshevik. Out of this comes identity politics, political correctness, and all of the negative current associations we have of the left. Sometimes I feel like postmodernism is very much a subtle, Western reworking of Stalinist social programming. Another example, Marxist critical legal theory rejected legalism and the associated state; of course the second the law schools realized the implications of Marxist legal criticism, they dropped the subject because of the nullifying implication for their own profession, and developed Postmodern critical theory, which encourage the judicial activism we put up with in our legal system now. In other words, academics quickly set to work of creating an ideology that justified the extension of legalism into social life, rather than doing the pragmatic work of using legal institutions critically for the praxis and liberation, and relying on direct action where the courts are too regressive. Postmodernists I am convinced, unchecked by other tendencies, would lead to an authoritarian society governed by legalists, highly technocratic corporate structures and the subordination of human life to machines, and relatively indifferent or even directly hostile attitude toward democratic principles in democracy like free speech.
@invanorm
8 жыл бұрын
+Robert DeVries 100% agree, well said.
@1alopezg
8 жыл бұрын
+Robert DeVries If you can't understand a word he writes how can you possibly make a comment on his work? Foucault has absolutely nothing in common with stalin and 'social programming' ; in fact his work is largely concerned with taking apart various forms of 'social programming' . You can't form a critical opinion of something unless you actually engage with it. Dismissing something on the basis of your inability to understand it- or even read it- does not constitute substantive criticism. I don't agree with Foucault on a lot of things, but i can form that opinion because i have actually read and engaged with his work
@postyoda1623
8 жыл бұрын
+Robert DeVries Foucault is the most understandable person of the lot and he is an absolute anarchist. His whole body of work is trying to show that authoritarianism exists in places you wouldn't have thought about.
@sanssoleilfilm
8 жыл бұрын
I have actually often used Foucault as a counter-example of a humanist theorist who actually makes sense, and who develops a consistent body of ideas based on an exhaustive amount of historical-empirical evidence. So if you don't understand Foucault, you are probably just not fit for academia.
@laguods
7 жыл бұрын
Considering that Foucault was a 'philosopher' it's ironic that you finished with a logical fallacy:)
@ronalddonahue8325
9 жыл бұрын
i love chomsky but he failed to give the elegant, golden answer to the man's question. what is it that makes science different from pseudoscience? say it with me y'all: REPRODUCABILITY.
@Pr0fanevibrations
9 жыл бұрын
*Falsifiability, actually. A facet of a pseudo-scientific theory is that it can explain entirely divergent observations and remain entact, typically using inherent ambiguities to help this (e.g. astrological horoscopes can apply to more or less anyone, using general human traits to fool people into a greater sense of identification that is due). This can be entirely reproducible, yet is not science. A theory that is scientific, however, is able to be falsified if presented with evidence contradicting its account.
@HarryS77
9 жыл бұрын
Pr0fanevibrations Gotta agree with this, although the two go hand in hand. Something that is falsifiable has to be, by its nature, reproducible.
@kimobrien.
6 жыл бұрын
Measure, reproduce, predict and attribute casuse. If you can't measure, reproduce, predict and attribute cause how good is your science? Answer its only as good as how accurate you can be.
@matthewfrazier9254
6 жыл бұрын
esteban embroglio that wasn’t really the questionn
@roger8654
6 жыл бұрын
Psuedo science is harder to prove wrong then real science
@신상희-p8c
8 жыл бұрын
Minimalism will be qallegedly identified truths throughout structures...
@MrBangbling
11 жыл бұрын
I agree that postmodern philosophy IS revolutionary in content....1968 Paris and all that...but now the way it is taught in university it is the Academy, the Prevailing Dogma.... people get PHD's in it.....the academic equivalent of knighthoods. Students need to invent their own vocabularies and ideas.....not rely on stuff that may have been revolutionary 50 years ago but is now just fodder for scholars of the "how many angels are there on the head of a pin type"
@phantom_left3881
10 жыл бұрын
I would really like to find what this video snippet is from. I really enjoy these criticisms within the left. The postmodern stuff has really fooled me before, where I racked my brain to try and figure out what they were saying, believing that they must be rather smart because of their polysyllabic ways. Oh, a little searching, and this comes from a giant worthwhile to watch interview, here's the same section: Science, Religion & Human Nature - The Chomsky Sessions - (2)
@ghostfires
11 жыл бұрын
did the dude just compare literary critics to drone pilots?
@paulwary
7 жыл бұрын
I would like to read more about the time when postmodernism was taking over the humanities. There must have been resistance, surely, from professors who noticed that their collegues were no longer researching or teachiong the subject in a meaningful way. Why did it fall to outsiders like Alan Sokal to call bullshit? I want to know the details of how they took with so little apparent resistance.
@paulparanoid
11 жыл бұрын
"Other" comes from Freud and has used and built on since then. "Dialectic" has long and respected history that goes all the way back to Socrates; Hegel then Marx then used it in the context we usually hear it today. And the term "universalisation" isn't common in my experience. It's sloppy, perhaps they mean "totalisation"? My point is that the language of theory is NOT obscure or inscrutable. It's not the philosophers' problem you don't know the basic vocabulary.
@hamzariazuddin424
4 жыл бұрын
These words are fine...it is all the other garbage it goes onto talk about...I read all these books and enjoy them...The language is poetic and at times mesmerising...but in all honesty they rarely uncover some profound of knowledge...Its often just stating something so obvious that everyone already knows, but just wrapping it in some pontificating rhetoric
@sthamdan
12 жыл бұрын
@axisaudio Do you know which interview this was? Where can I find the FULL video?? Thanks.
@vinayseth1114
8 жыл бұрын
I'd like to know more about what he means when he says this kind of gibberish has a more negative impact on third-world countries, being from a third-world country myself. Any links?
@oyvindei
12 жыл бұрын
"In the Nouvel Observateur, an ex-Stalinist who has changed allegiance but not intellectual style published a grossly falsified version of the contents of the petition, amidst a stream of falsehoods that merit no comment." Some Elementary Comments on The Rights of Freedom of Expression, Appeared as a Preface to Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en défense, October 11, 1980. This is probably Kristeva, too.
@cocojumbo555
11 жыл бұрын
i think the difficulties anglosaxons have with postmodernism, structuralism & french philosophy in general come from : 1) The deficiency of the english language; it's dulling & blurring effect fades nuances between words away, which leads to a) redundancy & b) imprecision. 2) The grip of the still powerful pious discourse entails a positivist, scientistic & logico-maniac (& dépassé 2 centuries ago) frame of thinking as a response. 3) The demand of consumer friendly & pre-chewed philosophy
@xxFortunadoxx
11 жыл бұрын
While I agree that the true goal of debate is not to persuade your opponent, I don't agree that the true goal is to demonstrate loyalty to the ideological crowd you align with. The true goal is to convince the undecideds that are witnessing the debate. If there aren't undecideds watching, you're basically wasting your time. This video is a prime example of how Chomsky is simply not well read on the issue of postmodernism. He's attacking a strawman.
@AG-ni8jm
3 жыл бұрын
Chomsky was demolishing postmodernism etc before Jordan Peterson was a thought... Yet without the reactionary politics
@ChicagoTurtle1
4 жыл бұрын
But the problem is, postmodernism (is that’s indeed what Chomsky is talking about??) did not start in the 70s.
@nosuchthing8
11 жыл бұрын
One giant face palm at 4:40. So because we had not discovered TB until the 20th century, ancient people could not have died from it? So if we had no accurate understanding of acid until the modern era, an ancient Egyptian could walk into HCL acid with impunity?
@yvanprkachin5485
11 жыл бұрын
I normally never write youtube comments, but I felt compelled to in this case. I have read Objectivity (the actual title of this book), and that is not in any sense what the book is about. I also happen to know Peter Galison personally, and I'm pretty sure he would be horrified at this description of his and Daston's work. I would particularly point you towards pg 376.
@Zatzzo
12 жыл бұрын
thanks, i just took a look at it, it's really funny.
@Silver2Quick
12 жыл бұрын
Foucault does not have a grasp of human nature. That was the entire point of the debate.
@MrDoremouse
12 жыл бұрын
Yeah I know he wasn't one of the trendy existentialists or poststructuralists, he was WAY earlier, I was just giving him as a (bad) example of this impenetrable spew of words.
@benb1612
6 жыл бұрын
for a linguist he seems to really hate poly syllables 😛
@xxFortunadoxx
11 жыл бұрын
It has nothing to do with "taking the heat." I've gone pages of comments debating with people about more trivial issues than what we were debating. I've debated moon hoaxers in the comments section for weeks. The subject matter isn't really relevant. However the minute the other side dismisses overwhelming evidence and begins arguing in bad faith, the discussion's over. It's a waste of my time. I will not respond from this point on. Feel free to get your last word.
@MrBangbling
11 жыл бұрын
Where are the well known artists taking committed, public, stances against Israel? This conflict IS the social equivalent of the Spanish fight against fascism in the 30s. Where are the modern day equivalents of works such as Guernica. If Picasso was a postmodernist he would then have had to paint another painting giving the Nazi Regime's point of view.Injustice and oppression are unambiguous in their effects and our response to them should be equally unambiguous. Artists take positions.
@JimJWalker
11 жыл бұрын
What is the book he is referencing? What are the authors names and spelling? "Dangerous Solutions"?
@fede2
13 жыл бұрын
@MachYew just google "chomsky on postmodernism. it'll be the first thing you'll find.
@jeremybrown1127
8 жыл бұрын
Words are hard, that's the problem with science is you have to learn.
@zhutch91
11 жыл бұрын
"Uhh...What about religion?"
@MrBangbling
11 жыл бұрын
On thinking about the issue a little more maybe the problem is just academia and its innate conservatism.....not necessarily any philosophic defencencies in PoMo per se. Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Deleuze etc all had interesting revolutionary things to say.....but at university their teachings have turned into an "academy"....their revolutionary ideas simply the "subject" of quiescent academic courses.. the old,old story of the spirit of 1968 Paris becoming a slogan on a T shirt thats for sale
@Nisstyre56
11 жыл бұрын
Ayer uses the exact same quotation in that book as an example of a metaphysical expression that is meaningless.
@ogunsiron2
12 жыл бұрын
True, I had forgotten about that particular ogre! I think he teaches and works in morocco. Does anyone know what exactly Chomsky refers to when he speaks of the great damage that postmodernism is wreaking in developping countries ? I suppose that it has to do with 3rd world intellectuals challenging modern medicine etc, because it's imperialist subjective white knowledge ?
@Nisstyre56
11 жыл бұрын
Did you take that example from Language, Truth, and Logic?
@robertdevries1049
8 жыл бұрын
I understand his criticism of theorists. In general, I like seeing dialectics and political and social movements who use language that is accessible to someone who isn't an expert. He brings up the specific situation of criticism in the humanities/literature, and it's elitist component.And he is not wrong about left criticism of the arts and humanities. However, the left has done a horrible job with the arts, and yet dialectics and outright Marxism has so much to offer the arts, if for no other reason than the experiments that come out of the arts are likely to result in famines, or wars, or failed enterprises, and often aren't made for the purpose of maximizing profit or producing consumer goods(at least in academia). Socialist Realism, constructivism, these theories of how to actually make art are somewhat different than a critic using Marx to criticize the work of an artist or writer. These theories (socialist realism as opposed to general Marxist literary criticism) get into what is actually occurring in the creative process i.e. the productive process. Also, the arts, being one of the few fields that are based largely on esoteric concepts (Tonal harmony, symbolism, color scheme, line, rhythm, the language of the arts is esoteric in the sense that it doesn't always fit within a closed theoretical system), means that if, I, as a Marxist sit down and try to analyze how music is produced, art is constructed, or poetry is written in terms of development of the means of production that the artist has at his/her disposal, or the social organization of creative work, or the role public assistance and funding has on the arts and the creative process, its draws me into the language of harmony, thematic development, style, and all the language associated with. The same would probably be true if there was an analysis done of any other industry; it's best to distill language down to the simplest terms, but their is always a certain amount of jargon in any field, whether it's plumbing, medicine, law, agriculture, or the arts. Socialist realism (and associated theories) came out of the Marxist-Leninist tradition, which was essentially, in my opinion, Stalin cheery picking Marx and Lenin to justify his policies. Stalin knew very little about the arts and when I look at social movements in the rest of the world, I see a lot of art that is 'leftist' in content, but neither realist nor nationalistic in character. This non-social realist art tends to be expressionistic, it tends to emphasize non rational motifs, and feminist themes. So, when there is left criticism in the humanities it does tend to be elitist, however,in the academic art scene and popular arts, especially in America, there is a completely devoid of 'processes' and 'organizational forms' (either social or productive) that facilitate the creation of socially produced, revolutionary art forms. Most academics are taking romanticism, and classicism and make it new, or embracing minimalism and pop art and this generally trivializes academic art, renders it unaccessible to average working people, or bastardizes the content from the product (for example, Andy Warhol's prints of Chairman Mao) and puts off the hard work of developing an internationalist language of the arts that is capable of real synthesis in the fusion of forms that can express revolutionary social and feminist themes across language and cultural barriers. I'd love to meet the person who could help make the language of revolutionary expressionism more precise, and less academic. Academia, given it's current tools, is not up to the task of reinvigorating non- commercial American culture or building truly universal forms into our popular systems of creative expression and production. Once I start talking about 'universal forms' I start to sound like an egghead, but that is the work of a creative artist, creating forms through which expression of themes an occur. It's necessarily very abstract for better or worse. Americans consume vast amount of entertainment, almost all of which expresses certain themes and values about our civilization and society. Some of themes in our popular art forms are overtly regressive, feudal, sexist, et cetera. But Chomsky is right, we don't need anymore academics who are simply criticizing the arts and humanities from the standpoint of theories that haven't really changed since the fall of the Soviet Union. We need creative workers/producers, who are engaged in the creation of revolutionary art forms that express themes in an international language based on fusion and universal expression. It's hard to distill the language down anymore than that.
@calohtar
8 жыл бұрын
I don't understand what you mean by saying "the left has done a horrible job with the arts." I get the sense you are dissatisfied with the academic criticism coming from the left, but more importantly dissatisfied with the lack of good revolutionary art. If that understanding is correct, I would ask on what basis you deem it a "horrible job" because there is certainly an overwhelming amount of art that deals with leftist/progressive ideals whether in movies (the wind that shakes the barley) or street art (blind idealism is...). An overwhelming amount of artists come from a place of leftist sympathy. The right is nearly totally silent on this front. It could be that you deem mere leftist sympathy as insufficiently revolutionary. I'll wait for you to confirm or deny that. But I'll move on to another issue. It seems you take issue with the more abstract and high minded art as inaccessible or otherwise too bastardized to be truly moving. And you seem to think this situation could potentially be remedied to create better revolutionary art. I would ask you, do you not suppose there is such a thing as aesthetics? And if aesthetics exists as a discrete set of concepts and practices, is it not reasonable that it would be resistant to being coopted for a purely political agenda? It seems to me that the more a film tries to pander, the most it fails as a work of art. The greatest art in the world has always served to paint a fuller picture of "humanity" rather than a particular vision of how humanity should be. There are certain currents, such as postmodernism, which deny both humanity and aesthetics, which in my view sets it firmly against the very essence of art, which explains why all the overtly revolutionary plays I've ever attended have been uniformly bad, as if a robot had assembled the script.
@MrBangbling
11 жыл бұрын
"Consumer friendly and pre-chewed philosophy"....? If what Chomksy was saying is consumer friendly and prechewed then his face and teachings would adorn the evening news.His main criticism of it is that it has simply created academic careers out of the wisdom of the oppressed. The average peasant "knows" more about PoMo than your PHD student.The arcane abstraction of what is actually fairly common sense, or should be, is more about obfuscation and the status and baubles of academic careerism.
@Ryan-fc9lq
11 жыл бұрын
The book chomsky quotes is called fashionable nonsense.
@oto9164
Жыл бұрын
3:45
@oto9164
Жыл бұрын
he said cringe
@derekrushe
10 ай бұрын
When i was doing both my Bsc and Msc, we were taught to write our papers as if a layman was reading it. If you have to write incomprehensible prose then what you're saying isnt probably worth listening to.
@iMaDeMoN2012
8 жыл бұрын
This is great. Chomsky criticizing social justice warriors long before it become popular on youtube. WHAHAHAHAHAHA!
@iMaDeMoN2012
8 жыл бұрын
Of course, he is just not directly criticizing them but he would if they addressed him with the ridiculous claims.
@Isoviaergatis
8 жыл бұрын
you just ignored that he admitted to agree with the basic feminist truths of systemic power structures of inequality. Basically, what he says is pro SJW. He is for simple language, which SJW as you call them, use frequently, because not everyone is an academic. So there falls you argument.
@jaredgreathouse3672
8 жыл бұрын
No no, this is awesome man. Chomsky just dryly, calmly critique it. "Me too, I wanna have a theory, I wanna be just like the big boys in the white jackets, and if you disagree with me you must be one of those white male racist sexist reactionary fascist misogynists....... ignore the pay gap, ignore REAL sexism and racism in our society, focus on us!!"
@thehmc
8 жыл бұрын
Has feminine science figured out why we have turbulence yet?
@iMaDeMoN2012
8 жыл бұрын
Εκκολαπτόμενος Πεοστίφτης I haven't ignored anything. There is truth to the structure power thing. Chomsky is pointing out that the reasoning and theories of these social science departments are full of shit!
@efarmer385
13 жыл бұрын
Which philosopher Do you think Chomsky is talking about? Any Ideas?
@fede2
13 жыл бұрын
@efarmer385 "*she* was a flaming maoist" rather narrrows teh scope. it's got to be julia kristeva. i believe that chomsky in fact referred to her the same way as this time around in his famous article against postmodernism.
@Neura1net
7 жыл бұрын
This ends too early
@carolinemuir5068
11 жыл бұрын
Apology accepted. Due to the complexity of the subject matter, 500 character KZitem posts are not the best format for clarity. Oh, actually, I know it is called a stein. My calling it a "keg" is a rhetorical device called "hyperbole." Consider the matter ended here.
@dannyarcher6370
Жыл бұрын
4:20 - Oh, Jesus. Please tell me that's not real.
@charleswinterton9066
8 жыл бұрын
see Richard Dawkins on "postmodernism".
@mahfuzchy4379
8 жыл бұрын
Don't bring ignorant fools' name in Chomsky's debate.
@Whackpacky
7 жыл бұрын
That is right, there is only room for one.
@YooTooLoB
7 жыл бұрын
Md Mahafuzur Chy could you provide evidence that one of the most important biologists of the 20th century is a fool? Or is this your way to cry at an intellectual you don't like because he criticizes Islam?
@mahfuzchy4379
7 жыл бұрын
Daphne V I don't know how you say he is "one of the most important biologists of 20th century", he did not win nobel prize, nor will he even win it. So I am sure there are hundred more biologists who will beat him hands down in your "most important biologists" list. In any case, he may be good at biology, but very ignorant when it comes to nuanced issues like post-modernism. His twitter rants shows his islamophobic, misogynistic and imperialistic tendencies quite often. In any case, one man's fool is another man's champion. If you feel he is a genius on post-modernism, go ahead, listen to him and be his ardent fan, I have no problem. And he is extremely ignorant about Islam and Muslims, so I could care less for his opinions on Islam.
@YooTooLoB
7 жыл бұрын
Md Mahafuzur Chy hahahahaha since when do Nobel Prices define the intelligence or intellectual power of a person? The only thing you provided in your answer were straw mans and misrepresentations of his views, which doesn't surprise me coming from a Chomsky fan. Dawkins received a Royal Society of Literature award and a Los Angeles Times Literary Prize for his book The Blind Watchmaker. Richard Dawkins is regarded as one of the most important biologists of modern history, he isn't just a "good" biologists, Wikipedia has him as "an awarded with many prestigious academic and writing awards and he makes regular television, radio and Internet appearances, predominantly discussing his books, his atheism, and his ideas and opinions as a public intellectual". I'd love to see you provide examples of the biologists that beat him "hands down", C'mon, I'll wait. Meanwhile you do your Google research trying to find biologists and biased articles to back up your accusations, the facts remain that Dawkins discoveries regarding things like evolutionary theory have set him as one of the leading figures regarding biology. Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. And of course, the answer could not be finished without the pathetic accusations of "islamophobia" by a Chomsky cultie. First of all, a phobia is an irrational fear, there's nothing irrational about fearing a totalitarian and suicidal religion like Islam. Now, if you're talking about anti-Muslims bigotry, which is a real thing, then I suggest you try to find a better straw man against him, as Richard has in multiple times spoken against hate towards Muslims as people, always making the distinction that Muslims are people, and Islam is a set of ideas. Misogynistic? Oh please, would you enlighten me with Mr. Dawkin's misogynistic rhetoric? I would love to see some proof for such claims, since as far as I'm concerned Dawkins classifies himself as an Feminist and has been very vocal about the women's issues in third world countries. However, you know what is misogynistic? A religion that deems the say of a woman as half worthy as that of a man, that lets a man have 4 wifes while letting him beat them, a religion in which women face a second class status, that's misogynism.
Пікірлер: 415