"Chomsky is empirically wrong." Slavoj Zizek, known Lacanian
>>7441841
Good post OP.
I know shit about linguistics.
Is that paper refuting Chomsky's theories?
>>7441841
>CHOMSHKEE EESH EEMPEERECALLEE WWRONG
What is he wrong about OP? Pic seems unrelated.
-linguistics major studying syntax
>>7441841
PURE HIERARCHY, MY GOTT!
>>7442019
Empirical proof of Chomsky being right.
Hegelians via Marx and Lacan BLOWN.THE.FUCK.OUT.
>>7441885
It is proving Chomsky's theories.
>>7441841
>empiricism
>>7442572
it's the best we have, 2bh
Wasn't this about Chomsky being empirically wrong about about Khmer Rouge?
Zizek said the empirically wrong thing about some bs about waiting for real facts about khmer rouge or something like that wasn't it. Nothing to do with his linguistics
>>7442589
>trusting one's senses
>>7442591
>>7442592
> implying Zizek's main problem with Chomsky is over his implicit Cartesianism, which triggers Hegelian Lacanian Marxists
He desperately needs to go MUH KHMER FACTS because otherwise his only argument against Chomsky is:
"This nigga don't think the penis = -1 squared. You all agree that's crazy, right? Praise Lacan!"
>>7442724
> Praise Lacan
damn straight
stop shitposting
>>7441841
Slavoj criticizes Chomsky on his political theory. I The "empirically wrong" was about rouge genocide.
From what i've seen of Slavoj's talks he never comments on Chomsky's linguistic work.
Slavoj is not really much of a linguist himself, and neither was lacan TBEH.
And for the record Chomsky is always empirically wrong about politics. If this paper and what you are implying is true then he should stick to linguistics.
>>7442804
> doesn't know Lacanian theory
This is pretty bad for Lacanians. Chomsky's UG is decidedly anti-Lacanian.
Read more.
Chomsky is appreciated as a linguistic only in America, they laugh at his theories here in Europe.
>>7442959
That is okay, Continental European academia produces nothing of worth.
>>7442972
Thats simply not true, at least not in germany. the system is heavely biased in favor of english-speaking countries. in addition to that, here a lot of the research ist conducted in "Forschungsinstituten" that are highly interwoven with the univerities, but not part of it. (max planck institute, frauenhofer society etc.
>>7442995
Only the Fraunhofer institute is slightly respected, it garbage compared to any of the top Anglo Universities in terms of impact. Germany is an intellectual wasteland, you have to go to Switzerland if you want a decent education (ETH).
>>7443017
Now thats just stupid. we may dont have a harvard or Oxford. but germany ranks fourth in reasearch output, below the US, GB and Japan.
Sadly, only 16th in reserachoutput per capita, wich is still above the us.
>>7443048
modify that for impact factor
>>7442567
I think Zizek was probably talking more about his political contributions.
>>7443052
well, the impact factor is fucked up by us universities doing everything they can to give each other the much yearned for citations.
>>7442569
>fMRI ever proving anything at all
Damn you must be a specialist.
>>7443130
>dialectics proving anything at all
Damn you must be a pseudo
>>7442019
same here. I don't see how it's related either. the real evidence for UG comes from poverty of stimulus
>>7442959
in my experience with linguistic literature that's not true. people like to make this claim a lot when they want to diminish chomsky's impact in linguistics. I've heard the same thing said about Japan, which is also untrue. which serious european universities are you thinking of?
I hate this place so goddamn much.
>>7443325
I hate you.
>>7442804
Was Chompsky wrong in Manufacturing Consent?
>its on my reading list and I dont want to waste my time
The ideal listener-speaker doesn't exist. Chomsky has revised his theory 8 times to cover the holes that keep appearing.
>>7442569
That's what the news titles claimed, but if you actually read the paper you will quickly see the paper does nothing of the sort.
>>7443851
>>7442569
chomsky is right about UG.
>the poverty of stimulus argument.
if you don't know what that is, or you think it has been discredited, see
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jlegate/tlr_legateyang.pdf
>>7441841
I suggest everyone read Lacan's account of meeting Chomsky in his seminar le Sinthome.
>>7444419
>Lacan flabbergasted from being BTFO by Chomsky and having his fou fou French philosophy refuted in the most commonest terms
>>7444444
GETTTT
>>7444444
OH MY FUCK
H
M
Y
F
U
C
K
>>7444444
>>7444444
no, seriously senpai, i'll give you 12 bucks for it. final offer.
>>7444444
>>7444444
MUH GOT PURE IDOCRACY
>>7444444
Really cunt?
>>7444444
>most commonest
ruined it
>>7441841
>known Lacanian
I had a chuckle after reading this silly gambit of yours.
>>7442724
but anon, it isn't a penis, it's The Phallus. try reading
>>7443166
dialectics don't prove. they describe. positivism is just a philosophical position anon.
>>7443483
can we synthesize Chomsky and Lacan on the basis of a syllogistic relationship between the big Other and ideal listener-speaker, neither of which exist?
>>7444933
adequate countermaneuver
>>7444444
PRAISE CHOMSKY
>>7445650
> hurr durr dialectics are unfalsifiable, that's why YOU'RE wrong
>>7445650
where are your dialectic moon landings, dialectic airplanes, dialectic CPUs, ect, ect, ect
>running late at uni so I decide to grab a coffee in the canteen, which I've never entered before
>the first thing to grab my attention is a large poster of a starving african child with some platitude written underneath along with a note saying that x amount of the price of a cup of coffee will be given to charity
>it's a starbucks, oh boy
>full of hipsters reading popscience and new-age self help books
>I snort in derision and mutter "my God! and so on" under my breath, tightening my grip on my copy of Phenomenology of Spirit with an expression of smug satisfaction before turning to leave
>I'm in the middle of a line to the counter and it would be too awkward to leave
>I begin to get highly agitated, pulling at my shirt and sniffing repeatedly as perspiration begins to glisten on my face
>As I approach the counter the girl behind it asks me what I'd like to order
>"one cup of ideology please"
>She looks confused and tries to ask what I mean, but I keep cutting her off and going “huh? huh? huh?” while closing my hand shut in front of her face
>In my excitement I knock all the cups off the counter and exclaim "ideology at its purest!" before storming out
>>7446790
>mfw
Zizek is such a bad philosopher, but he's such a GOOD meme. I wonder if the two statuses are related.
Is Zizekposting the natural conclusion of his ideology?
>>7447365
it is pronounced jizzposting
>>7447388
Truly you are blinded by the propaganda of the regressive left
>be linguistics/neuroscience double degree graduate with first class honours
>see standard armchair linguistics thread on /lit/
Absolutely cancerous.
>>7449016
yet you contribute nothing
>>7449016
>Be educated in a given field
>act surprised when people not educated in that field make inaccurate statements regarding aspects of said field
>>7449039
I'd expect a board that prides itself on knowing about philosophy would at least have some basic intellectual honesty.
>>7449032
When the posters making the most self-confident statements are those that apparently don't even know what UG is or have even read so much as Aspects then there's no 'contribution' to be made really. It's like trying to play chess with pigeons.
>>7449101
btfo this thread
>>7444444
looks like I picked the right day to return to /lit/
>>7441841
#rare #based
>>7444444
worth a bump for sex
>>7442804
>And for the record Chomsky is always empirically wrong about politics.
>>7452822
Give one counterexample.
>>7442959
No, that is bullshit.
>>7449101
>he thinks his autistically composed theoretical classes made impressively specialized for commerical reasons mean jackshit on /lit/
Ha, ha. Oh, wow.
