Every time someone asks Chomsky a question they try so hard to sound smart and then Chomsky just uses the most basic language ever and still sounds like the most intelligent person in the room
That's because he understands what he is talking about. There is an old saying: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Chomsky clearly does the former. (Edit) "...they try to sound smart". One could make that statement about many of the people posting replies.
This video has such a 90s vibe. Makes me feel like I'm 7 years old, but instead of watching kids get slimed on Nickelodeon, I'm learning about the complicity of post-modernism in imperialism.
@@themadmattster9647 That's very different than transtrenderism. In fact "trans rights activists " would call you a "transphobe" for referring to that "older model"
"You can beat people over the head with perfect self-confidence because there is no reality anyway and it's just their narrative and your narrative". Postmodernism in a nutshell.
I'm so glad I finally understand post modernism in order to understand it's affects. I believe it's VERY VERY important for everyone to understand these underlying negatives.
I've never heard him talk before. He is so relatable and casual. I would have expected him to be more of an impenetrable intellectual. Will definitely seek out more of his talks.
I have 2 degrees in the humanities and have spent 10 years working within universities in various roles and this is amazingly spot-on and in alignment with my, subjective experience of the humanities culture (which has both excellent, thought-provoking, mind expanding academic work along with a proliferation of intolerable pseudoscientific nonsense). The humanities (at least in my country, Australia) really need to clean their act up and embrace scientific and academic rigour! It's too important a field to let be over run by ridiculous post-modern more-radical-than-thou-ism!
you are incorrect. I am also studying for a humanities degree in Australia and have found that the philosophy being taught is mostly Chomskyite analytical style philosophy. Your views must be quite extreme if you think Australian universities are teaching ''post-modern more-radical-than-thou-ism''.
@@kaidenkondo5997 Interesting. I teach politics and international relations at an Australian university. From the late 90s when I started university I've been battling postmodernism and its various desdendants - eg identity politics. To me postmodernism is everywhere. Some departments are completely taken over by it - eg, the usual suspects, such as Gender Studies. Other departments are at least half gone, such as English, Sociology and Psychology. But I do get the sense that some Philosophy departments are hanging in there. I also find that there are many students who think that knowledge is guaranteed by identity, which is itself dependent upon postmodern relativism, rather than being founded on reasoning and evidence. So I'd have to say that I'm mostly with Dhamma Boy on this one.
yeh, I'm not really going to take anyone seriously if they define things on such 'us vs them' binaries. such poor and divisive reasoning. It shows that youdon'tt really understand poststructuralism or postmodernism at all. I feel sorry for your student, if you paint such caricaturized views on ideas.
@@stalkinglikecandy eh, youre reinforcing a power relation, which is something that a famous postmodernist, Foucault would recognize. You seem to be trying to exclude other forms of knowledge production in order to exert force upon others. postmodernists often just ask ''what do I play in this situation'' and it seems you refuse to acknowledge your ideological position of power. If one is to call themselves neutral, then one'd be exerting a very despicable form of power in order to control and subjugate, that of totality. I ask, by being so strongly against, relativism arent you just trying to force your totality? One totality seems far more dangerous than relativism to me.
@@curtblack686 Sorry! I misread your first comment! Totally agree! I read it 'describe' as opposed to what you wrote 'describes' which made me read it as a question
Chomsky is the very definition of the intellectual: He cares not about mental exercices that are entertaining but ultimately futile; He is only interested in the practicality of ideas, and how to change things in the real world.
5:06 it’s funny that Chomsky summarizes the explanation and dismissal of postmodernism with «it has served as an instrument of power»! That’s meta-postmodernism right there.
It blows my mind how Chomsky was able to identify so many issues before they actually became mainstream. Postmodernism in my opinion, at least what i've heard chomsky say in older transcripts, really sounds like the root of the problems surrounding the PC culture and the anti-intellectual trends that occur within some areas of academia(specifically the humanities in their willful attempt to seem meaningful)
quagmire444 i think using post modernism as blanket discription is unhelpful as Chomsky is picking out specific people with academia. whereas postmodernism covers many other areas...?
Chomsky is deeply honest in his teaching and has no ego about his immense knowledge. He is also very brave and generous about sharing with everyone. God bless this good man.💟
Foucault told Chomsky that in France, he had to riddle his commentary with a bunch of non-sense, or else he couldn't get published or taken seriously. I experienced this in a lit theory class that it took in college. I was reminded of this quote as the students argued with the professor about how they couldn't understand what she was getting at. When it came time to do our final written exam, I read a handful of lit theory deconstructions of other artist's work, and studied the nonsense. I then turned in a paper that was intentionally nonsensical. I merely adopted the language, and style of what I read, and with a bit of creativity, formed a narrative that couldn't possibly be accurate. I was given a B.
Just reading Michael Albert's memoirs. He says he had the same experience in Economics. Was told he had to use the jargon even though it added nothing analytically
If the first part about Foucault then it may have been a bit tongue-and-cheek. I’m no expert on Foucault’s arguments but it seems to me that underlying his work is the idea that what we believe to be objective/true (especially in the social sciences) has actually been subjective/relative to what the subconscious information that we used to arrive at that “truth.” He categorizes each era of how we relate/order information in different ways as “epistemes.” And ultimately argues that we validate what is true/not true by what words and ideas fit into the current discourse (the ways in which ideas are related to one another through the use of language/images). I know that some of that interpretation is definitely incorrect and not really worded in the best way, but the point is that Foucault’s position on whether or not a work is considered right or whether or not someone is considered insane all depends on how neatly they fit into the current discursive regime rather than them being objectively wrong or insane. Given this he could be poking fun at the fact that in order to be accepted by academia, he necessarily would have to use certain vocabulary and syntax that fit within the acceptable norm.
+InterestingName Was just arguing with a friend who claimed the exact same thing...when I explained this was contradictory, he says it is only contradictory in the world of truth hood lol
ElectricQualia Well tell him the rules of logic prevail in an adult discussion. If he disagrees, ask him why he bothers to even discuss philosophy in the first place
InterestingName He claims there might exist realms to which we are not aware of yet, where logic is not king there. It's a form of annoying hyperskepticism which tries to pigeon hole everything into "i'm on the side lines" and "nothing is real"... I tried to explain in vain that if such realms "exist", they are totally irrelevant as they are non-conforming to our most basic perceptual mental categories, I.e logic. Then he claims they are "not real to me, but they are real to whomever is there" lol...and I was turned into a truth nazi trying to dogmatically assert I know absolute truth, when in reality it is unknowable...
ElectricQualia Even if such a realm did exist, we don't live there, so it's a bit of a non-issue. The possibility of a realm without logic says nothing about the logical discussions we have in this realm.
InterestingName Exactly. But then again , he claims that logic is relative because of the possibility of such non-logical worlds...the irony here is that he is using Modal Logic, which is a form of binary logic... What these relativists don't get is that probability is based on logic too...its so frustrating
• •••• I can see what you mean. If reality doesn’t exist (and there is no right or wrong) aren’t they contradicting their own opinion by continuing to exist? I used to think that of nihilists, can apply it to this lot as well 🤣
Obi-Wan: "So what I told you was true, from a certain point of view." Luke: "A certain point of view?" Obi-Wan: "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Was Obi-Wan a Postmodernist.
I always thought of Obi-Wan as more of a modernist ( i.e. I see therefore things could develop me into something better ) when those first set of films came out. Then, I realized he was more of " practical " character, especially after the prequels were made. Example: He fought Anakin in Episode 3 only to see Anakin was too far gone into the darkness. And, with this experience in mind, after Luke fought Vader, Obi-Wan realized that you can have experiences in the real world but to define " truth " depended on how one sees things over a period of time, dependent on circumstances that may or may not be in one's control. To me, Han Solo was more of the post modern character ( " Good against remotes is one thing. Good against the living? That's something else. " ).
This is no place for a long-term argue, but as Stephen R.C Hicks put it; he compares postmodernism with creationism and say postmodernists is not more relativists than creationists. It is a short-term tactic as long they are on the losing side on the intellectual debate, they will push intellectual egalitarianism and argue that nobody really knows the absolute truth. As Chomsky also said, '' use it to hit people over their head''
Because Chomsky values reason, argument, evidence and open-mindedness. If you think you don't need to read anything beyond Chomsky, you haven't even understood him.
chel3SEY Well I'm just joking that I don't read. I do. I just made a statement that I thought I had learned more from him than most. What is wrong with that exactly. Paying respect to a great intellectual is all.
I respect what Dr chomsky says here. It is foolish to suggest that nobody does anything based on moral grounds or notions of truth. i love his example of apartheid, and there actually are other similar situations that are examples like that. peoples actions are motivated sometimes and actually in cases like this more often than not by morality or their own notions of truth. post modernists should not assume that ideas like morality and truth are vanished just bc they are old. far too many people still hold with morality and truth even if post modernists dont. however the point is while, as foucault would have suggested there is no objective universal truth or morality, or at least none can be proven, many still believe and act as if there is. while there is logic in the notion of relativity in truth and morality that doesnt mean that those concepts cease to exist or function. it should not be the goal of post modernism to rid the world of truth and morality but rather to reexamine and possibly redefine them. post structuralism is beneficial in that it offers this method for reanalysis, but reanalysis does not necessarily mean nor doesnt necessarily result in radical change or removal of an idea or concept.
furthermore it is not as much a brake from the enlightenment as decart, was somewhat of a postmodernist in his deconstruction of "what can we truly be sure of" and he came to the conclusion i think therefore i am. where we do a thesis then an antithesis to come to a synthesis you have an idee, you deconstruct it (postmodernist) then you come to a conclusion. it's only bad when you use it wrong i think (therefore i am).
“Morality” is simply one’s moral code, it can go either way. It seemed it was her presumption when she mentioned “power play” that moral always means virtuous, which for me is symptomatic of their tendency to reject the abstract, the philosophical, and any awareness of grand narrative characteristic of the old ways eg., modernism, Enlightenment thinking etc. Too white, male, and patriarchal I bet.
Post-modernism in the way you expressed Foucault, is an epistemological error. Although there is a subjective/interpretive component to all things, there is an objective enough "for all intents and purposes" component to most things. Subjective is of two kinds; arbitrary and contingent. Things are always contingent but never arbitrary. That's where they screw up.
Post-modernism doesn't say that morality doesn't exist, post-modernism says that any notions of universal truths are merely the ideological interpretation of the world. Everybody lives and does according to their ideological interpretation of the world, even the post-modernist. "The danger" for the post-modernists is that "of the illusion of critical distance." Because "we are all implicated in the legitimization of our culture" and because we cannot go outside of culture, we can be and most probably are part of the thing we are criticizing. Post-modernism is more about self-reflexivity than criticism towards others, as it wants to save itself from the consequences of modernism. (Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism) Notions of universal truth and morality never vanished, post-modernism calls for its abolishment because post-modernism believes that consequences of modernism are not desirable. As for the people Chomsky addressed, I am not sure post-modernism works as an instrument of power. Reason and science came to be tools for legitimizing cruelty, opression and power. Postmodernism's aim is not to silence its ideological foes (that would be something a modernist did!), rather unearth the truth that there are no truths. The truth is a liberal humanist lie.
Although I'm a marxist I hold Chomsky as one of the greatest thinker (and teacher) alive. Spot on concerning Postmodernism! Postmodern-radicalism will always be tolerated by the elites in the society/big business since it's completely useless! Instead of toppling statues and shaming people for using the wrong word we ought to put our effort in attacking the gross economic inequalities that now exist. -If people how worked at the companies owned them and/or the biggest banks were nationalist in the public interest -that would make a difference!
@@kithkin01; Not even Derrida make such a claim. I do subscribe to its performative though. If you listen to his opening remarks - Chomsky states crystal clearly that he does not know what Post-Modernism is. The overriding question is - why keep speaking to Post-Modernism when one states categorically that one do not know what it is?
@@Sportinglogic So many authors are hyping "post modernist" propaganda. I put quotations for the general way so many writers are in line with the establishment, zeitgeist. Idk what you call it. But its extremely damaging to people trying to understand reality.
There are no rules; we can do what we like; those who have the power have a free hand! No right and no wrong! When people like this rule a nation, have complete control, Any ideas on where this might lead?
Is Chomsky saying that morality is not the true motivation of radicals but simply power which becomes all consuming and corrupt producing dystopian governments/
Because only hobbits have the least susceptibility to being corrupted by the power of Sauron...and this has been evidently expressed in Chomsky's life. agree or disagree with him, hate or love him, one can't deny he is always cutthroat with the facts when it comes to data and statistics on any subject. His interpretation is subjective as is expected but it has been the less important stuff, albeit as humans that's what we focus more on.
@@johnnytocino9313 My point is that there is something to learn from postmodernist too. It is true that a lot of authors which we would categorize as postmodern, are essentially sophist who sell an illusion of knowledge, who allow others to consume the illusion of knowledge. Or better put, a lot of things they talk about are sophisms. Then again, we can perhaps learn quite a lot from them. It seems that Chomsky intuitively recognized this, which is one of the reasons he had a nice discussion with Foucault, and so was able to use the same sort of power-based interpretation of academia which we might call postmodern. It's a bit funny because Chomsky is allergic to the word "postmodern" and to sometimes ephemeral postmodern theories.
@@DD-hb4de well I never said that my man, although I did imply that the two are related. I really don't know a lot about postmodernism and I think that in the example of Chomsky we can see that there is a danger in using this collective term without acknowledging the nuances. I kind of recalled that Foucault had a lot to say about the state of modern psychiatry and psychology, how they are in a way relay points of the distribution of power. I'm misunderstood.
If you want to understand anything about the relation between Chomsky's positivism and post-modernism I suggest you go find and watch his debate with Foucault. I think you will realise that it is very easy to ridicule anything when you are lecturing to an audience of admirers but things get quite tough when you discuss with an authority of the subject.
+elmerfadd First, Chomsky is not a positivist. Second, it wasn't a debate, it's just two people talking and drinking a lot of orange juice. Chomsky and Foucault speak about human nature as always they did, there is nothing new in that video. It is more an historical curiosity.
When he lectured at Berkeley, Foucault argued that there is a way to truth (parrhesia) that is based on speaking freely, as the jester does to the king. The jester is able to speak truth to power through the idiom of the fool.
I cannot recall where I came across this, "Postmodernism is like a balloon filled with water which is continually changing shape, never takes once shape and never rests".
Don't try to project your stupidity into others mate. Zizek is perfectly understandable. In fact, most of continentals are understandable (like Hegel etc.) except maybe few French ones (goddamnit France you ruined our lives again!)
Zizek is a Hegelian. Hegel is pretty well established in philosophical literature and was even an influence on Marx. Zizek is pretty critical of postmodernism actually.
@@buddinganarchist I wouldn’t say Hegel is even postmodern. The most confusing thing about Hegel might be his use of dialetheism to solve some paradoxes.
Postmodernism is as incomprehensible and thus inaccessible to most folks, as the Latin Bible was to the 16th century peasantry before the Reformation (whereby the Bible was translated into native languages and made affordable enough for far more of the general population to have a copy),. Just like the masses were, previously denied the access, ability or means to comprehend the bible for themselves on their terms way back then, and so depended on priests with their own motives, biases and irrational beliefs to interpret the bible for them on their terms instead; so too are we often as dependent on youtubers with their own motives, biases and irrational beliefs when they provide break downs on their terms, instead of being able to access and assess those ideas on our own.
this insistence on clarity by the analytical philosophers and stupid people is pathetic. Why should philosophers, theorists, writers and the like have to write for the herd? An academic's audience is not the general public, if it were then the concepts discussed will be at such a shallow level. Let's take the example of a mathematician: No one is condemning mathematicians for creating formulas and concepts that the public cannot understand, so why should philosophers be told to write with a ''simple, clear explanation''. Philosophers and social critics do not write for stupid people like you who demand everything in an easily digestible format.
Post modern ideas, by unmasking how power relatiinships underly claims to truth, provided radicals with a way to confront authority. And that was a good thing. However, when post modern thought is taken to its conclusions it also undermines the moral authority radicals often assert in their critiques of authority. Truth with a little t exists in communities of practice where dialogue experimentation and examination of assumptions are prevalent. That's also the case in moral communities that are ongoing.
@@goyonman9655 I just don't know what else you have. Authority must be lodged somewhere on some basis in my opinion. Better to lodge it in a context where dialogue and experimentation are valued.
@@goyonman9655 I think decisions have to be made and specialized knowledge can often play a role. That's relying on authority to some degree. Maybe you have another vision.
it may be readily adopted by the kinds of people Chomsky is referring to and for the reasons he claims those same people adopt it. However, primary forces which propel and shape it do not necessarily conform to a rational serial matching of the output to the input. information theory tends to think there is this kind of output to input correspondence. digital information also tends to be technologically predicated on rejection of noise as being meaningless and therefore automatically rejected by the senses the same way a digital system rejects noise. I subscribe to the theory that human beings do not operate within this assumed model of message communication. see Barrington Nevitt. one of the simplest claims I have heard chomsky make is probably one of his most important imo. when he said, it is often the case that when you reduce down very complex arguments, you are often left with a moral claim which could be easily taught to any five year old. I doubt one can realistically claim Postmodernism is the root of PC culture. chomsky is suggesting Postmodernistic paradigms can be used to serve as a tool for something else, and giving the instances which in his experience back up that claim. many things can be used as a tool for something else. this particular fact has never really been controversial imo.
Thanks for this pragmatic view. Maybe its time to revisit the founding philosopher (Foucault) and try to uncover the real agenda behind his social constructivist thought. Maybe it isn’t a political power philosophy he was striving for but rather, once establishing credibility. exploring sexuality and the underlying power relationship. Perhaps its more about breaking social norms for Michel Foucault’s own purposes starting with homosexuality but moving well beyond ,
I feel like Chomsky is referring to more of the ‘cultural turn’ in academia, which is connected to post modernism. Subjects like ‘x studies’ which I don’t think have been incredibly useful in countering the material suffering of people around the globe.
To celebrate 20 years of the Postmodern Generator, here is a sample for your amusement.😀 _Cultural narrative and predialectic theory_ Stefan T. H. Buxton Department of Literature, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass. 1. Gibson and neodialectic theory In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist sexuality. The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the bridge between class and culture. However, the defining characteristic, and some would say the futility, of predialectic theory depicted in Gibson’s Virtual Light is also evident in Mona Lisa Overdrive, although in a more self-justifying sense. “Sexual identity is a legal fiction,” says Sontag. Lyotard suggests the use of cultural narrative to deconstruct hierarchy. But if neodialectic theory holds, the works of Gibson are reminiscent of McLaren. Dietrich[1] suggests that we have to choose between predialectic theory and capitalist narrative. However, Debord promotes the use of postcultural Marxism to read and modify class. The primary theme of de Selby’s[2] model of predialectic theory is a mythopoetical reality. Thus, the premise of cultural narrative holds that society has intrinsic meaning. If predialectic theory holds, we have to choose between predialectic narrative and the patriarchialist paradigm of narrative. In a sense, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the meaninglessness, and subsequent economy, of subcultural language. 2. Expressions of rubicon The primary theme of Long’s[3] critique of cultural narrative is the role of the observer as writer. Several discourses concerning predialectic theory may be revealed. Therefore, Sartre suggests the use of neodialectic theory to challenge sexism. “Society is part of the fatal flaw of sexuality,” says Derrida. Debord uses the term ‘cultural narrative’ to denote the difference between class and culture. Thus, the subject is interpolated into a neodialectic theory that includes sexuality as a paradox. In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction between destruction and creation. Dialectic theory suggests that the collective is capable of intention. However, any number of desemanticisms concerning the economy, and eventually the dialectic, of prematerialist class exist. “Society is responsible for capitalism,” says Derrida. Parry[4] holds that we have to choose between predialectic theory and neosemanticist theory. Therefore, the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the common ground between sexual identity and society. A number of deappropriations concerning cultural discourse may be discovered. In a sense, Foucault promotes the use of neodialectic theory to analyse class. The primary theme of Reicher’s[5] model of predialectic theory is a semanticist reality. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a cultural narrative that includes narrativity as a whole. If neodialectic theory holds, we have to choose between neocultural narrative and structuralist feminism. However, Baudrillard suggests the use of predialectic theory to attack hierarchy. Foucault uses the term ‘neodialectic theory’ to denote the bridge between sexual identity and sexuality. It could be said that several sublimations concerning the role of the observer as artist exist. The subject is interpolated into a predialectic theory that includes truth as a totality. Therefore, in Pattern Recognition, Gibson affirms cultural narrative; in All Tomorrow’s Parties, although, he denies predialectic theory. Brophy[6] suggests that we have to choose between dialectic discourse and neomodernist materialism. But Sontag promotes the use of predialectic theory to read and modify society. 1. Dietrich, G. ed. (1990) The Discourse of Genre: Predialectic theory and cultural narrative. Oxford University Press 2. de Selby, Z. W. U. (1976) Nationalism, constructive desituationism and predialectic theory. Panic Button Books 3. Long, B. ed. (1990) The Futility of Reality: Cultural narrative and predialectic theory. Yale University Press 4. Parry, Y. U. (1971) Predialectic theory, capitalist discourse and nationalism. University of North Carolina Press 5. Reicher, K. ed. (1995) The Narrative of Futility: Predialectic theory and cultural narrative. Cambridge University Press 6. Brophy, R. T. (1977) Cultural narrative and predialectic theory. And/Or Press _The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link._ The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there). This installation of the Generator has delivered 23,092,612 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational. More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks“.
@@bobafett4457 Too much to postmodernism for the length of this video to address or a single youtube comment - the short version is: truth (i.e. science, history, human nature) is completely based on linguistic power-plays (narratives) created by competing ethnic, gender, socioeconomic identities. All of human reality is simply oppressors & the oppressed. Great book called ‘Explaining Postmodernism, by Stephen Hicks for more.
@@bobafett4457 Stephen Hicks is the worst account of postmodernism you will find in all of academia (if you even want to call that book academic). Watch 'Cuck Philosophy's review. As for a short introduction to postmodern thought: It is hard to really define the plurality of post-modern voices. You can define it as a rejection of modernity, or as a set of analytic techniques. Important to postmodernism are: the rejection of metanarratives, stories on how stories are constructed. (Meaning rejection of marxist thought, rejection of libertarian thought or religious systems) and instead a way towards splitting intellectual problems. Recognizing the different solutions presented by different approaches. Dividing problem areas and solving them individually by which works best for them. and: the use of deconstruction. An analysis of contradictions between text content and text structure, to derive the meaning from any piece. From this, also the use of a post-structuralist understanding of language. This is very reductionist though. It is much more enjoyable to engage with the postmodern thinkers individually.
Ive heard the term Postmodernism alot over the years, but never bothered looking into it before now and i must say, im glad i havent missed out on anything
This guy straight up said having a job was fascism because that and starving to death were the only two options. Like, dude, go off the grid, play music on the street. There are options. It isn’t fascism or prison to have a job.
The words are quite funny. In 20 years a repórter Will say What? What do you think of the póst,póst,póst modernism or What do you think of the over postmodernism?
No one should pay attention to Peterson. He just got lucky, getting spotlight mostly because of his political controversies. Most of self-improvement jazz he is advocating is either outdated, flat out wrong or a mixed bag. Certainly not the profoundest thinker, not original and highly annoying at that. There are much better resources for these kind of topics. And I don't want to even go about his politics, that's where new level of batshit is reached.
@@iachtulhu1420 So you hate him because what he says makes sense rather than talking for an hour while saying absolutely nothing at all? And what is wrong with his politics? You think people should be imprisoned cause they used the wrong pronoun?
A Postmodernist wants to figure out how to live on mars before they create a society. More simply, mars will need different morals than here on earth but first, we as a society need to look past modernity to postmodernity for the technology to get there. Do you think old school moral Christian folks are looking at postmodernity as something strictly as self-serving or are they just elon musk - that they have not the time for frameworks that are no use to them ( like rockets that are used only once)?
