everyone here hates him but i've never seen a criticism outside of
>chomsky lol
>he sucks
>he's an idiot
why is he so wrong?
He plays it safe.
My only complaint is he isn't willing to question 9/11 the same way he did for the other stuff, even though it is so tantamount to current US foreign policy.
No matter how he writes if off, it is still a gaping hole.
>>5735959
hes not as edgy as other pop-philosophers.
This is the same board that likes Lacan and Zizek, remember. Chomsky's work in linguistics is great, but his political stuff should probably be ignored.
>>5735959
>why is he so wrong?
He's a jew.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/11/06/384954/chomsky-silence-on-911-jfk-questioned/
"In an interview with Press TV on Wednesday, Professor James Henry Fetzer said, Chomsky “neglects to observe that 9/11 was a false flag operation; he neglects to observe that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was deliberately contrived by the powerful special interests in the US.”"
my gawd and so on
>>5735983
>Muh inside job
Surely he knows Bush allowed them to fly, right? You want him to say more?
1. He's an apologist for Bin Laden and other violent enemies of the United States
2. His entire critique of American foreign policy boils down to "it's imperialism" (please read Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer and Schelling for a more accurate and less problematic assessment of the reasoning behind U.S. foreign policy and especially defense policy - I am not saying they're right but you'll get a much better explanation for the reasoning behind modern American foreign policy than "imperialism and control, guiz!")
>>5735995
kek are you this stupid?
>>5735959
all I know is that one of my friends is a professor of anthropology and fucking hates him
>>5736003
He failed to address the clamp down of rights post-911 and redirects all gains of 911 to totalitarian countries.
For his material on the US in the past this is totally roundabout.
>>5736018
Naom Chomsky is a huge centerpiece in the debate among linguists and anthropologists involving innate language theory
>>5736018
>professor of anthropology
>>5736030
And what do you have against that particular field?
>>5736039
It's pseudo-science.
>>5735959
He isn't wrong, most people here are not intelligent enough to understand him.
>>5736072
Maybe, but plenty are also intelligent enough to understand him and see right through him
>>5736006
>1. He's an apologist for Bin Laden and other violent enemies of the United States
explaining the cause of something happening isn't apologism you amerifat retard.
Some people seem to think he's a good linguist and a shitty political theorist, while I think it's the other way round. General grammar is an epistemological clusterfuck
>>5735959
Linguistics student here, Chomsky has been blown the fuck out from so many different directions it's not even funny.
>>5736149
Such as?
>>5736149
so has newton but you don't see people whining about what an idiot he was
>>5736160
Philip Lieberman's Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain
Michael Tomasello's work
Stephen Levinson and Nicholas Evans' 'The Myth of Linguistic Universals'
Donald Davidson's work on language
Daniel Everett (depending on how you feel about Everett, it's controversial)
i don't mind chomsky. universal grammar and the propaganda model are fantastic.
people complain about his political stuff, but i don't think there's anything really wrong with it, it's just really dry. it's also associated with a certain brand of insufferable young political activists.
>>5736006
>mearsheimer
>a good professor
most boring classes I've ever taken in my life. please don't come on lit and talk about mid-tier scholars to try and show us how academic you want to be.
>>5736179
What about them blows him out?
>>5736185
Lieberman demonstrates that what Chomsky claims is not plausible with regard to what we know about the brain.
Tomasello, Levinson, Evans and Everett from various sources show that the claims made by UG theorists are either not accurate with regard to linguistic typology, or otherwise construed in a way that basically makes them unfalsifiable.
Davidson is a special case in that he points out the ways in which theory about 'language' is prone to all sorts of reifications.
>>5736018
>being friends with antisemites
>>5736149
It's been 50 years since a lot of his works came out though. I wouldn't call that getting blown the fuck out, more of an expansion of the ideas. That's like saying modern physicists blow classical mechanics out of the water -- fundamentally wrong. We've added to a field, not blown out someone's work.
why does he hates Lacan?
Is because muh linguistic theories ?
>>5736224
Actually, Chomsky still adopts fundamentally the same presuppositions about strong in-built constraints that he did in '56, it's just that it's described under the Minimalist program now. If you accept any of the arguments addressed by the authors I listed, he has indeed been blown the fuck out. It is NOTHING like the transition from Newton to Einstein and Bohr.
Take it from somebody who has actually studied the field - don't base your views on facile analogies. Linguistics is not physics.
>>5736225
To be honest, reading the account of Lacan given in Derrida's biography alone is enough to make anyone hate him.
>>5736252
so you havent read Lacan, but you hate him.
>>5736261
Actually I have read Lacan, but thanks for that accusation out of nowhere?
>>5736225
Because Lacan's work is unfalsifiable nonsense.
chomsky's idea of the 'universal grammar' isn't common and is mostly popular in usa, it's nowhere near the einstein's theory by recognition, leaving aside importance
>>5736274
>?
I don't think you were asking a question there, ese.
don't know much about him at all, but his explanation of the U.S.'s involvement in Haiti was pretty fucking interesting to me.
how credible about this is he? does he have other stories like this?
>>5735959
He's critical of the dominant paradigm, and not flawless
therefore, everyone feels comfortable dismissing him unless they precisely share his exact ideology
>>5736274
so..
are Lacan ideas incompatible with chomsky ideas?
I dont really know about linguistics, but I have this feeling that the hate against Zizek and Lacan is because some implication in their works.
>>5736312
>are Lacan ideas incompatible with chomsky ideas?
Not sure, that's a complicated question.
Chomsky sees himself as a scientist while Lacan generally subordinates science to psychoanalysis and what Chomsky calls 'posturing'.
>>5735993
This, his linguistics work is actually relevant and based in facts. His politics are incredibly generic and grounded in 1960's bleeding heart liberalism.
>>5735983
>Jeopardising his entire career over some conspiracy theory bullshit
>Hating someone who called himself an anarco-socialist in the 1960s, putting his career at risk for "playing it safe"
Stay fucking moronic /lit/
>>5735983
he was like the only person who questioned the dominant 9/11 narrative.
>>5736534
You forgot Michael Moore
>>5735959
it's the american shitposters, just ignore
often you'll find the meme criticism /lit/ parrots ever since it's seen it "his work in linguistics is great but his political stuff should be avoided!!"
9/10 of the times these people haven't read both
americans are so delusional that they think couldn't possibly be right about something he has studied for decades in his own country because he's anti-government and considered "edgy" or a "fedora tipper", both meme criticisms aswell
>>5736762
You're confusing "having an opinion on something and being published about it" with having genuinely studied it. No serious American intellectual who studies politics regards Chomsky's opinion as anything more than the blowhard garbage it is.
>>5736778
tbf, that's not a great argument, as your argument relies on your definition of 'serious' & your definition of 'serious' almost certainly includes 'doesn't take chomsky seriously'
so really all you're saying is "American intellectuals who don't take Chomsky seriously don't take Chomsky seriously"
>>5736778
so being somehow neglected in academia makes him someone who only spouts blabbery? here's another fine example of a /lit/ opinion parroter
go read a book
>>5736800
How funny, I am being told to "read a book" by someone who is such an illiterate and so intellectually destitute that he or she actually believes Naom Chomsky to be a quality writer with worthwhile opinions! I think I am going to pass out from laughter!
>>5736762
I don't get why foreigners assume Americans are all super conservative patriot die hards. Just about everyone agrees that the US government is horribly mismanaged. Most people outright hate it. The issue generally isn't with acknowledging the multitude of problems, but instead trying to all agree upon a good solution.
>>5736778
His books are more than just opinions on foreign policy and world politics, they are mostly extremely dry recitations of facts from the public record. The only reason people see him as "extreme" is because the facts make it clear that the US is responsible for remarkable amounts of state terrorism. I have never seen any critic of his ever dispute anything he has written.
>>5736778
an almost textbook "no true scotsman"
>>5736762
Here's the thing, people have different opinions about government and governance. His work in linguistics is more of a science. Critiquing politics is just an easy way to sell books.
>>5736814
You have clearly never read any of his books if you think he writes opinions. I agree that Chomsky is a shit writer but everything he says is 100% factually correct.
>>5736800
>>5736814
Both of you could at any point mention your sources or at least explain why you think that way citing some examples.
You could bring up the times Chomsky intentionally quoted dubious sources or the times he was the only one presenting recordings of first hand experience. Anything would be a better discussion that "nuh, you suck"
>>5736814
>>5736824
this is a great post
>>5736832
I too think politics is a lowbrow form of study and linguistics is far more substantial, but if he's views on politics are such trite so is everyone elses' in the field.
>>5736778
>No serious American intellectual who studies politics
Who?
>>5736858
Yes. I don't think political writers should say much more than the bare bones facts, but there is always a bias. I don't much care for the subjective, though.
>>5736870
>I don't think political writers should say much more than the bare bones facts
You're funny
>First
Political writers exist to support things a posteriori, that's why people can actually live off being in a think tank.
>second
There re no bare bones facts, you have to interpret data tog et a conclusion. To make the most basic reading you have to take also take in considerations the conditions it was taken, making it an interpretation of something that may have happened.
>>5736883
Foucault was just a nitwit spouting unfalsifiable claims.
Noam Chomsky is a SWERF and will probably degenerate into a TERF in the next few years (that is, if he doesn't keel over and die).
>>5736884
>you have to interpret data tog et a conclusion
Yes, the facts. The data.
>Political writers exist to support things a posteriori,
No, they exist to make money from their opinions.
>>5736890
>SWERF
I know what a TERF is but what's a SWERF
>>5736895
>Yes, the facts. The data.
What do you think facts are for the public? You can't make people be there even if you want, and it's much easier to make data say whatever you want.
>make money out of opinions
By supporting things that already exist.
>>5736890
I BEEN SWERFIN
SWERFING ON THAT GOOD GOOD
>>5736921
>What do you think facts are for the public?
Political writers are part of the public.
>You can't make people be there even if you want
Which people? Be where?
>and it's much easier to make data say whatever you want.
Depends on how the data is gathered.
>By supporting things that already exist.
Not necessarily.
>>5736909
Sex worker exclusionary radical feminists. They are the scum of the Earth and need to be forcibly transitioned STAT. Remember: if ze SWERFs, chances are ze TERFs.
He has some point of views that i dont agree with but politically speaking, in murika, he is some of the fews intellectuals who actually knows what is happening overseas. Ask an american where is india, and they will say it is in the fucking middle east.
Most of the americans dont know how much money is spent in Israel, and how much sionists jews are in important positions of gorvenement, and media. Just clear out these fucking people out of your country.
OP here, my question goes on unanswered by the people who don't like him
i need specifics. please no more"good linguistics, shit politics," that means literally nothing. you all are giving off the feeling that you've never read him/listened to a lecture and just don't like him because everyone else doesn't
i'm willing to accept he's an idiot but some please give me an actual reason why
>>5736957
Well, all people who talk about politics as if it is a science are retards.
>>5736957
You are not getting nothing in here. You think a bunch of neets can really talk about politics in a high level?
>>5736252
What did Derrida write?
>>5736957
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
>>5736972
>this book
I don't hate him at all. His Rationalism is nonsense, but I fall into roughly the same political sphere as he does.
Hes nice to have around because he isn't afraid to call out the American State on its bullshit. Everyone in the US hates or distrusts the Government anyway.
>>5736975
I actually am a big fan of Chomsky. I just posted that since that's the number one thing people link me to when I say that I just read a Chomsky book. I actually think Bagdonor's points here are all wrong.
>>5736986
lib soc? thoought i was the only one
>>5736997
Dem. Socialist, yeah. Think Alec Nove.
>>5736995
A kid have linked this same book to me once. Reading this book just made me like Chomsky even more.
>>5737016
Im varying between dem socialism, lib soc, and anarcho - syndicalism.
I have not read too much on democratic socialism, could you give some recommendations?
>>5737043
The differences between those are irrelevant, so I don't know what you could want.
Just read economists, the only important thing is working out a functional economic system where large swathes of it are owned collectively/cooperatively. Keynsianism lends itself very well to this, and Alec Nove has a good book on the subject (The Economics of Feasible Socialism).
You can always read Lenin, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc if you want abstract theory.
>>5737065
ah thanks. Ill check this book up
Just read Daniel Everett's paper and you'll know why he's a cunt.
>>5736060
Get out.
>>5736397
hes not a liberal you fuckwit
>>5736969
It wasn't written by Derrida himself but by his biographer, Benoit Peeters.
It describes well-known instances of Lacan being a manipulative, slimy cunt towards Derrida and abusing his friendship to increase his own academic clout. He did the same to Felix Guattari and many of his 'patients'.
>>5736397
>anarchist
>liberal
oh jeez, americans drank the kool aid on everything haven't they
>>5737107
Linguisticsguy from before, I was just wondering if you could tell me which one? I've read several of Everett's articles but I haven't seen anything that discusses Chomsky's personal/professional behaviour specifically.
>>5737655
wait a sec, are you implying that derrida was a pantient of lacan?
Because that would be.....interesting
>>5736060
no you are
>>5737661
He wasn't a patient of Lacan, he was an acquaintance ever since the Baltimore conference on structuralism.
>>5736220
Underrated
>>5737671
I would like that, por favor.
>>5737708
Por supuesto, amigo. Dame algunos minutos para lo busca.
>>5737708
>>5737720
>A year after Baltimore another dinner took place in Paris, at the home of Jean Piel. Lacan clasped Derrida’s hand warmly in his oily palms and asked him what he was working on. Plato, the pharmakon, letter, origins, logos and mythos: He was preparing a text for Tel quel. [. . .] Once again, [Lacan] announced how curious it was that he too had already spoken of the same themes. His students could vouch for it. Derrida spoke tothe psychoanalyst and told him the following anecdote. One evening, as his son Pierre was beginning to fall asleep in his mother’s presence, he asked his father why he was looking at him. ‘Because you’re handsome.’ The child reacted immediately by saying that the compliment made him want to die. Somewhat troubled, Derrida tried to figure out what the story meant. ‘I don’t like myself,’ the child said. ‘And since when?’ ‘Since I’ve known how to talk.’ Marguerite took him in her arms, ‘Don’t worry, we love you.’ Then Pierre broke out laughing, ‘No, all that isn’t true; I’m a cheater for life.’ Lacan did not react. Some time later, Derrida was dumbfounded to read the anecdote in the text of a lecture by his interlocutor delivered at the French Institute in Naples in December 1967. Lacan recounted it as follows: ‘I’m a cheater for life, said a four-year-old kid while curling up in the arms of his genitrix in front of his father, who had just answered, ‘You’re handsome’ to his question, ‘Why are you looking at me?’ And the father didn’t recognize (even when the child in the interim pretended he had lost all taste for himself the day
he learned to speak) the impasse he himself was foisting on the Other, by playing dead. It’s up to the father, who told it to me, to hear it from where I speak or not.
There are others but this is the main one that stuck in my memory.
>>5737732
Thanks anon
>>5735983
>he plays it safe
Plainly you don't know shit about what he's done
>if you don't agree with me then you're part of a conspiracy
Someone forgot their meds
I respect him, but only know him for his work in linguistics. He's better known, obviously, for his political views.
>>5735959
He is a straight-forward, insightful public intellectual who is perhaps the most effective political critic with regards to providing evidence for his arguments. His solutions are nowhere near as clear and brilliant as his critiques; however, as far as exposing the truth of America's political anatomy, he is second to none (emphasis on political as opposed to cultural or economic, credits which could be afforded to other critics with more focus on those areas of study).
>>5736986
>call out the American State on its bullshit
Attacking sensible foreign and domestic policies by misrepresenting them is not calling out anyone on "bullshit"
>>5736824
>abusing the term "state terrorism" to describe actions that it does not apply to
>>5737787
The funny part is that he's not a political scientist or a scholar of a related field like political history or political geography. His political writing is opinionated scribbling about a field that he is not trained in (which is why he does not understand it, and why his books are mostly appealing to readers who do not understand politics or political science) and which his background has fuck all to do with.
>>5736746
Chomsky is basically Michael Moore with an Ivy League phd
>>5735959
He's a fucking hack, that's why.
>>5739239
He uses a definition lifted verbatim from US army manuals and gives irrefutable evidence that the US government engages in terrorism by its own definition.
>>5735983
Your a gaping hole
>>5736027
What's up college freshman
>>5736814
> [...]actually believes Naom Chomsky to be a quality writer with worthwhile opinions!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky#Academic_achievements.2C_awards.2C_and_honors
He's a huge useful idiot.
>>5736762
You're right about this. There seems to be a reactionary vein running through 4chan with the rationale of "not being fooled" by anti-establishment figures in a kind of counter-contrarian way. Most of the time all their criticisms amount to are insubstantial accusations of being "edgy" and something for "angsty teens to read" without any actual analysis or informed critique of their writings. I'm not saying Chomsky has all the answers but his work is based on empirical analysis of real life political events and power structures; although it is obviously framed within a certain ideological perspective he is still exploring the right questions about the world.
>>5740748
this
also, all encounters with his linguistic theory in my studies have been academics chuckling at how wrong his theories turned out to be.
however they're quite one sided and are constantly pushing their own shitty theory down our throats about connectivism.
>>5735959
>being a self professed anarcho-capitalist
>believes in the federal reserve
Don't ascribe to a collective conscious please, thanks /lit/.
The only people who dismiss academic's entire bodies of works are idiots.
>>5736207
So Lieberman claims that language comes from certain area of the brain while Chomsky has more of a pseudo science psychological belief that we are born with it?
Im not too familiar with either
>>5736225
because lacan is a hack and his works are mindless blable disguised as science.
>>5736824
good
>>5735993
>>5736397
Actually, his linguistics work has mostly been discredited and is largely considered useless by the majority of linguistics academia. Only in the US is he still a big deal, and even then there is a large camp against his ideas. Some even say that he's held the field back for decades with ideas that lead to nowhere. So no, his ideas are pretty much useless now with regards to linguistics and he shouldn't be paraded as such.
>>5736822
Because their whole experience with America is through their own media with its exaggerated claims or through 4chan memes taken for face value. I've never meet a single person who thinks our government is infallible, but from what I get from here this is how all Americans think. It's probably the most accepted meme on this site by non-Americans.
>>5736183
You've taken a class with him? Can you say more about being in his class? I'm a grad student in international affairs so i'm naturally curious.
>>5736183
My experience is that incredible scholars are not always the most fascinating professors. Your argument is invalid.
>>5736889
>Foucault was just a nitwit spouting unfalsifiable claims.
babies first philosophy of science.
Call me after lakatos.
He is a fine propagandist if nothing else.
>>5739319
You are essentially lauding him for providing piecemeal information with little context beyond his own inflammatory opinions
>>5742613
The philosophy of science is an after thought to real science.
>>5743147
Both lead to the dogma of scientism.
>>5736175
Newton was ahead of his time, Chomsky refuses to change with the times.
>>5736175
>>5743169
Linguistics and hard science are very different fields. Even if a scientist's theories are later disproved it's kind of important that they laid the groundwork for future research. While the same can be said of some linguistics, many of Chomsky's linguistic theories are so fundamentally flawed at a base level that there's nothing legitimate for future scholars to build on or extrapolate from.
>>5736822
Because we're looking at the U.S. from a p.o.v. that Americans have little knowledge of, and in comparison, you are often just that. With the amount of culture you export, and the amount of news coverage and debate we get of the U.S., we simply know much more about you than you know about us, and therefore we're able to make better comparisons, and often in comparison, what you consider normal is to us the same as being patriotic, conservative die hards.
>>5743188
>we simply know much more about you than you know about us
Really, because most "foreign knowledge of Americans" I've seen here is just le_hamborger_meme.jpg and calling Americans rude or fat
>>5743195
You are fat, and you are a trashy corporate culture. Once again, in comparison to many. Don't know about rude, I've never gotten that impression.
>daily reminder that chomsky was an apologetic of pol pot and a milosevic supporter because of muh anti-imperialism.
Filthy scum
>>5736149
Astrophysicist here, Thales of Miletus has been blown the fuck out from so many different directions it's not even funny.
>>5741027
>So Lieberman claims that language comes from certain area of the brain while Chomsky has more of a pseudo science psychological belief that we are born with it?
not exactly - nobody disputes that we're born with a propensity for language and that it has some kind of structure, but chomsky's formulation is incredibly rigid
>>5736997
Isn't that just about what happened?
>>5735993
>but his political stuff should probably be ignored.
What the hell are you talking about. It's some of the best documented stuff out there. If there's one thing Chomsky's good at, it's contemporary American politics (also the propaganda model is fairly useful).
>>5735959
>he's not Zizek
>>5741273
No one is criticizing Americans for thinking their government is infallible. People criticize American Exceptionalism, which is widespread in the US and probably even more widespread in the beliefs of those in charge. It's really hard to find someone who doesn't think that the US is the best, or at least was the best, country in the world
>>5737065
>>5737105
Ah Shit, I'm doing the same thing. Just remember to have a diverse reading of economists. That includes Austrians and neo-libs as well. They might have something interesting to say which could be used.
Actually, the anarchist/lib-soc side seem to be becoming more interested in economics. it's a growing trend. With any luck, there will be a boost in the movement. It's been kinda stagnant for a long time (at least in the west).
>>5743206
>ebin smarterthanu post
>ur a burger lol
M8...
As a linguist, he is of paramount importance. He's the biggest deal since Saussure. It doesn't matter if he's wrong - he is nonetheless a giant there, and any linguist must at least tango with him a bit if they're to live up to their job description.
As a political "thinker," I would agree with others that he's a bit bland and doesn't bring much to the table, but he is good at making radical ideas digestible for the unwashed masses of vaguely liberal White middle-class suburban America. He naturally gives off an air of authority.
>>5745178
>the propaganda model
Funny that he doesn't use it to discuss his own work (which is a sort of propaganda itself)
>>5745238
Who the fuck still believes in American Exceptionalism?
>>5746004
I do? The richest country in the world with the best universities and most dominant military is producing culture that the entire planet wants in on, so much so that individual countries are willing to destroy their thousand-year old traditions just to participate in America's glory
America is exceptional, regardless of whether or not you are happy about it
>>5746103
America's "exceptionalism" comes from astute geopolitical policy and presence, and not the virtues of our culture. We're the biggest market and the biggest world power, so there is natural gravitation towards satisfying that audience.
We're simply the biggest consumer.
>>5746126
>he doesn't believe in the american protestant work ethic and the fact that it made this country exceptional
Still a virgin, eh?
all i actually know about chomsky is that he is some professor, but every thread i come in and tell people how much i appreciate his work in linguistics but that his political ideology is extremely flawed and should thus be avoided. in all honestly i have zero knowledge of his work (i really don't even know what linguistics are) and i know zilch about his political agenda. i'm a dropout who works at a fucking mcdonalds and the last full book i read was fucking james and the giant peach in sixth grade but damn everything if i don't come here everyday and talk down about chomsky
>>5746862
Yeah it's just a flawed way of thinking is all, fix your thought patterns.
>>5746862
>"i really don't even know what linguistics are"
>burger king dropout
>hasn't read a book in a decade
reminder that you spend three hours a day arguing about david foster wallace with these people
>>5736183
Likewise don't come to lit to show off about how you had classes with high profile professors, you slimy shit
>>5735959
His study of linguistics is pretty great, but his political agendas are complete shit, in my opinion.
His linguistic work is considered a joke, except in the US.
>>5746897
Yeah, but political agendas are amazing.
>>5736060
Yeah most fields of knowledge do not have the possibility of being super quantitative. That is all pseudo science means. Does not mean knowledge is not worth knowing. So fuck off you're the worst kind of disengaged idiot. The unintelligent STEM kid trying to seem more curious or informed than he is based on his undergrad major he barely understands.
>>5743159
>Both lead to the dogma of scientism.
How on earth is Feyerabend's work scientistic?
>>5746103
Oh jesus, teens like this really exist? I choose to interpret this as a parody post
