>What you’re referring to is what’s called “theory.” And when I said I’m not interested in theory, what I meant is, I’m not interested in posturing–using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever. So there’s no theory in any of this stuff, not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it. I don’t see anything to what he’s saying.
Was he right, /lit/?
>>8128618
>Chomsky
>Žižek
>Giant Douche
>Turd Sandwich
>>8128618
No, Chomsky is just too autistic to understand the notion of synchraticically contingent discourses.
>>8128626
Also, Chomsky's contribution to the field of linguistics is massively overblown.
>>8128631
>synchraticically contingent discourses
Explain this babble.
Zizek is an unapologetic populist and Chomsky is one of those academics who just doesn't know how to stay in his own lane. They're both goofy.
>>8128633
it really isn't. Academic linguistics in many places is firmly within a chomskyan paradigm.
Chomsky is of course, wrong about Zizek, mostly because he is wrong about basically every philosophical topic.
>>8128640
The point is that when you reduce propositions as Chomsky desires to bare elements you can lose much of the truth invovled that arrises from the relationships between the concepts and interpretations
>>8128644
>Zizek is an unapologetic populist
He's the opposite, but he's also a weirdly successful author.
I'd be surprised if many of those who buy his books, actually understand them.
>doesn't know how to stay in his own lane
What do you mean?
>>8128644
>Zizek is an unapologetic populist
He really isn't, he has a keen understanding of showmanship and persona marketing but his work itself is anything but popularly tailored
>>8128661
>liberal cuck detected
>>8128708
>Using 'cuck' unironically
>>8128663
>What do you mean?
Chomsky, like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson, likes to act as an authority on subjects he isn't particularly well-versed in based solely on his name and celebrity. The other three practically built New Atheism on similar claims. I'm pretty sure they all hold PhDs, or at least advanced degrees, in scientific fields, but they all like to shit on philosophy and religion as though they had any greater understanding than an undergraduate.
Chomsky does this every time he leaves the realm of linguistics. People flock to what he says more or less because he's Noam Chomsky.
which one will die first, /lit/ ?
>>8128661
HAHAHAHA - nice one, pseud.
>>8128826
In fairness to Chomsky what he does have outside linguistics is a vast modern historical knowledge, the man is an encyclopedia predominantly by virtue of being through it all
>>8128826
Holy fuck, you are so clueless it's painful to read.
>>8128836
He tried to excuse the crimes of various Communist regimes, or dismiss the claims/figures/etc as Western/Imperialist propaganda, and got called out on it.
>>8128826
Jesus fucking Christ, you're an idiot.
Chomsky doesn't "shit on philosophy" - he's regarded one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century.
Putting him in the same category as Harris is the act of a moron.
>>8128849
Capitalist apologist detected.
>>8128853
>he's regarded one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century
By who?
Your Korean online basket-weaving book club?
>>8128837
>People can only talk about whatever subject they're qualified in
I literally don't see the problem with this statement.
>>8128853
> he's regarded one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century
The fuck are you on about? He's barely even considered a philosopher at all, I don't think he even considers himself a philosopher
>>8128826
How to trigger /lit/ - tell the truth.
The funny thing is that this place hates Harrisposting/etc, but dare to suggest that people should be qualified on the topics they address and they'll jump down your throat faster than a Lolita-reading paedo-patrician.
>>8128853
I didn't say Chomsky shits on philosophy, I was still discussing the other three. I could have worded that better. My point is that Chomsky tries to act like a public intellectual rather than an academic intellectual and he fails in that pursuit.
>>8128861
Are you fucking retarded? If you surveyed contemporary philosophers, he would easily make the top 10.
>>8128892
>Popularity determines greatness
>>8128870
Holy fuck, you're clueless. He's been a faculty member at MIT's department of linguistics and philosophy for DECADES. He is one of the most cited figures in philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. He has mentored many key figures - Jerry Fodor, etc etc.
>>8128876
Are you referring to yourself?
>>8128904
You literally asked "by who" and I gave you the answer. Do you have Down Syndrome?
>>8128923
Not the same guy. My point remains.
>>8128952
Uh, no. You have no point.
>>8128976
>A philosopher is great if they're popular
>>8128909
Yes for his work in, you mentioned it, linguistics. He has not had any significant philosophical contributions
>>8128983
>A philosopher is great if they're popular
Not necessarily true. That's actually a fallacy. Think before you post again, retard.
>>8128997
Let me walk you through your posts so far
>Chomsky is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century!
>If you survey contemporary philosophers, he would easily make the top 10.
>You asked "who" and I said "they"
>A philosopher is not great if they're popular, retard
>Chomsky is one of the greatest, the public says so
>Popularity is no indication of greatness
Your cognitive dissonance is interesting.
Chomsky is right in being annoyed at obscurantist writing in philosophy and the social sciences, but wrong about it having no content.
He's right about a lot of it having no content. A few of the major figures are entirely puffed up, many of them are substantially puffed up, and the vast majority of nameless scholars expend their entire careers puffin' on each other's dicks to no effect, just exchanging jargon.
There are authors who are painfully simple once you decode the jargon though. Being a jargonigger is always bad, but not every jargonigger is vacuous.
>>8129084
So you think making up dialogue is actually going to help your cause? LMAO.
Here's the actual order:
Me: he's regarded one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century
You:
>By who?
Me: by contemporary philosophers
You:
>Popularity determines greatness
Me: Not necessarily true.
Conclusion: You are literally retarded.
>>8128876
>Lolita-reading paedo-patrician
>>8129168
You argue that "he's regarded one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century"
You cite "contemporary philosophers"
How is this not an appeal to popularity, if not an appeal to authority?
>>8128618
He is right, Zizek is pointing his finger at liberal leftists and having a tantrum in high flown language while Chomsky has a well developed position that doesn't fall to such scrutiny.
So in that respect Chomsky is completely correct on Zizek, however Zizek made the point that the critique of ideology is powerful in a sense that Chomsky's methodology doesn't capture and he explicates this with his example of the Khmer Rouge. Although to some extent Zizek's entire point is based on a suspicion that later was confirmed so it's not clear that his methodology is very good to the extent that it can be useful.
>>8128826
I have no idea what you mean by Chomsky's philosophy, he's a linguist with basic scientific hypothesis. There really is nothing wrong with this.
Then his other non-linguistic contributions would be in politics and here he is on an extremely high calibre. Extraordinarily well respected.
>>8128892
Narrowly makes top 10 for recent anglophone philosophers specifically: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2015/01/most-important-anglophone-philosophers-1945-2000-the-top-20.html
>>8128826
He's probably among the living persons who know most about politics
>>8131436
>Extraordinarily well respected.
nope
he hasn't contributed anything to Politics/Political Economy
>>8131926
>Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
and various political-historical criticisms and stage setting
>>8131926
> implying you can comment
Have you ever written a social science paper?
http://news.mit.edu/1992/citation-0415
>>8132427
Are you incapable of using a computer or the internet beyond posting on here?
>>8132454
can you please tell me what he has contributed to the field of political economy
>>8132463
Why don't you email Chomsky and ask him?
>>8132487
can you please tell me what he has contributed to the field of political economy
>>8132133
>Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Thats nothing but a standard Marxist critique of bourgeois parliamentarism that existed for a century
