He said it "makes me cringe" not "it's cringe" There's a big difference how you white suburban teenager leftist use thar word and how the dictionary defines it. "Cringe" is a verb. You people use it as a noun, trying to make ot more objective than it really is.
Not me. I can't stand self-interested hypocrites. I would rather deal with some thieving lawyer or politician that one of those phonies. At least they make sense on the surface of it and they are seldom pretending to be "profound".
I am a physicist, and I can correct Chomsky on one point... physics and mathematics are actually very simple subjects, if you can understand the meaning of most proofs and theories in mathematics and physics there is really not a lot to it. The difficulty is in the language and methods, which humans are not well adapted to comprehend. It takes me hours to read a dense mathematical physics paper, sometimes more than hours, sometime weeks, and on some occasions years, or I might give up if a paper was really poorly written. But the end knowledge of all that reading is always something extraordinarily simple. Sometimes profound, but always simple at the core. The massive complexity in cutting edge math and physics comes from the bewildering array of these simple ideas that are deeply connected. It is in trying to grasp all the connections at once that is so monumentally intellectually challenging. So yeah, you need a highly trained mind to do this, but the base ideas are simpler than ideas in psychology and economics.
I love how Socal pranked a postmodernist journal by giving them a paper ostensibly agreeing that scientific principles are just social constructions but actually just making a lot of nonsensical word salad using languahe popular in postmodern circles. He bet they would not subject it to peer review and just publish it to crow about a respectrd physicist like Sokal on their side and he was right. They swallowed it whole cloth. Priceless! :)
@@billpod11 Imo, the issue is how Socal was trying to show that the postmodernists didn't peer review in general. He was saying that their methodology is poor. It's not that it refutes postmodernist ideas, it illustrates their weak methodology. That's how I see it anyways. Cheers :)
Will Wytcher they didn’t even read it. They just saw that it was a bunch of polysyllabic gibberish and said “ok this is good.” It proved they were frauds.
Eh, the worst coming out of Paris can be quite Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs... Way too much intentionally difficult fancy terms like "Spectralité" (which practically doesn't mean anything at all), and not enough real world experience... It's totally deserved, and you can hardly fault Chomsky for expecting that smart people talk about at least somewhat real stuff.
Chomsky could see right through the narcissistic ethos of postmodernism and especially the superficiality of individuals like Lacan who used big words to say essentially nothing.
@@MrShbbz Do you mean "Parisians?" I think Chomsky's intentional misrepresentation of postmodernism appeals to people so much because of how inexact and misunderstanding it is. He often states he doesn't find it intelligible and he universalizes that subjective view as a blanket dismissal of an entire school of though he admits he doesn't read. As a linguist, it's impressive how he can make two opposing statements on language like that, but then you hear a lot of his other xenophobic comments on France as a whole and it's less surprising.
@@GenteelCretin I understand Chomsky when I read him, clearly, thoroughly. When I read the "Parisiennes" its quite the opposite, the point is obscured, misdirected and subjected to strange axiomes, where every "breach" of logic constitutes a "quasirevelation". Chomsky said clearly, the postmodern thought is all about truisms, saying what is more or less obvious, and as such doesnt present any "science" as such; I agree completely with that. He also said, which is completely right, that postmodernism is beyond any ethical or moral borders, and as such a very strange school of thought. What you label as "xenophobia" is just a representation of what a simplistic and limited understanding you have. I cannot comprehend how possibly one could understand his words as "xenophobic". He states facts, if you dont like them, that is your problem, its not the problem of facts. Perhaps you should indulge into something where you cannot state your ungrounded moral/ethical judgements. This is about truth, not perception of truth. Too bad you cant see that.
YES haha!!! This is exactly what I am thinking reading their work xD Its over convoluted and uses languages that are in many cases ridlculously overstated
It's in this clip. When he talks about the french philosopher who was a dedicaed Maoist then became the first person to discover Stalins crimes, he's talking about Julia Kristeva. He doesn't mention her by name but refers to 'her' and 'she' which sort of gives it away.
I can see how Jordan Peterson must have heard this, changed "Stalinist and Maoist" to Marxist, changed a few other things, and presented it as his own idea, and also, as right wing. Chompsky, of course, is Libertarian Left, which used to be viewed as being as far left as left gets.
I wouldn't call Peterson right wing. He's considered right wing because of his criticism of the left, but bear in mind that it makes sense since he comes from the world of academe, which is predominantly leftist. He has criticised right wing ideas, just not as much. With regards to presenting Chomsky's ideas as his own, this claim doesn't hold much water. Many have been showing their disdain towards postmodernism since its emergence in the the 1960's. Neither Chomsky nor Peterson claim to be the first. You can say Chomsky has more mileage since he was born a few decades before Peterson, and even got to debate Foucault.
Jordan Peterson wants to retain symbolic structures (trans people don’t exist) , so he is obviously on the right. That’s been his entire work: things are changing, here’s how it’s wrong.
@@bruv3891 I don't think you can equate Peterson with Chomsky on the basis of their mutual support for free speech. Sure, I myself support free speech, that is free speech that doesn't tell people they don't exist, so then do I agree with Jordan Peterson? No. We have different concepts of free speech. Obviously everyone thinks that they themselves should be able speech publicly. So if someone, like trans rights activists, try to take away Peterson's speaking rights at college campuses, Peterson would obviously say, "Well what about free speech! You say you trans people don't want to be silenced then why are you silencing me! Oppression!" Trans folks said that they want a chance to exist, white men already exist, we know plenty about the existence of cis people, so who's actually oppressed? It's the Jordan Peterson's of the world that make their living off of convincing cis people that something is being stolen from them.
Postmodernism isn’t even a theory. It is what Fredric Jameson (or Raymond Williams) calls “the cultural dominant”, which refers to a way of living in the late capitalist society.
Postmodernism is not only a rejection of Enlightment, but of human culture and tradition. If everything is constructed, than all traditions are lies and covers to “Will to Power”. That’s why their theory is so stupid compared to real life. They negate everything, except themselves. But Enlightment had some major problems too and we need to go beyond that mentality. We can’t stay stuck in kantian morality forever.
he is basically that postmoderism isnt incorrect or wrong but rather it lacks meaning because it fails to alter or bring about positive changes in the lifes of the deprived and marginalized
Hi there, Does anybody know of a text or interview in which Chomsky addresses the work of Jacques Derrida directly? or does he always put all of them together as a group? many thanks
No, he’s far too lazy to engage with specifics and even when/where they (Derrida, etc) are wrong, Chomsky is still speaking with a broad brush that is a mile wide and an inch deep.
Sokal and Bricmont's book is titled "Fashionable Nonsense" (1999). May have been published once as "Dangerous Solutions" but this seems to be the title.
Chomsky's commentary on Latour's argument makes complete sense, because Latour himself seems to be confused about the nature of social construction. Of course tuberculosis existed - but until modern day, it was unknown to us. Thus, only after the discovery of the disease were we able to give the phenomenon a conceptual identity. This does not refute the existence of tuberculosis, just refutes the CONCEPTUAL nature of it, until it was given one....there must be a subject (mind) to give an object (or phenomenon) meaning. This is an example of how SOME postmodernists still have yet to develop rational methodology, used to accurately refute intrinsic reality in phenomenon (by intrinsic reality I mean absolute identity, which is impossible to exist in harmony with relativity).
What you wrote is an excellent example of postmodernist utter nonsense. Wording. A lot of words about nothing, a simple truism. The conceptual nature of any phenomenon is completely irrelevant when you discuss the positivity of something. The very existence is enough, I need no concept behind it. What you call "conceptual nature" is called "knowledge" throughout human civilization and the simple fact is this knowledge (concepts) changes, yet that has no effect on the positive phenomenon ... the claim "there must be a subject (mind) to give an object (or phenomenon) meaning" is the again an example of many words for a simple truism: "subject (mind)" is always there, thats us humans - without us there is no meaning, yet that does not mean the phenomenon doesnt exist, its just a fact we have no knowledge of it as yet.
When I was in grad school, I called the whole thing a racket. But they were really nice people. And at least the students learned French; a second language is useful.
Anybody else listening with headphones high as shit feeling that alien-underwater sounding Chomsky sporatically penetrating your earlobes? I can hear his voice being poured like honey into my ear canals. I know this ain't bullshit. Post in the comments, yo.
Actually a lot of postmodern thought comes from Nietzsche and Heidegger, who were not French. I also think that Alain Badiou has some interesting things to say on mathematical set-theory and its relevance for politics, love, knowledge. I think that the woman who switched from Maoism to anti-Maoism that Chomsky refers to is Julia Kristeva.
Yes there are 'modern intellectuals' who have certain things wrong... If only one of them can contribute to rationalism then it's an important contribution.
SOKAL Alan and BRICMONT Jean, _Impostures intellectuelles_ , Paris, Éditions Odile Jacob, 1997 There is a translation though for those who cannot read French: SOKAL Alan and BRICMONT Jean, _Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science_ , USA, Picador, 1999
I love Chomsky but I don’t totally agree. To reduce what Foucault had to say to a bunch of truisms I don’t think is right. His analysis in Discipline and Punishment is really unique in how social control works. Knowledge being contingent and partial was a necessary correction to the absolute certainty of the Enlightenment. I think postmodernists have good stuff to say.
I was ready to hear his argument because i have studied his works and i have huge respect for him. Then, he mentioned Sokal. The main thing about this whole this for me is that nothing good comes out of trying to make huge generalizations on thought. Just serves to embarrass everyone involved. Look at what Derrida had to say about the Sokal affair. Pretty humble words for a narcisistic academic impostor, would you say?
Derrida just deflected blame and basically had no good points to make other than to point out that Sokal was a troll who should’ve debated us instead of denigrating our work… Derrida is the last postmodern philosopher I would ever appeal to if I wanted to distance myself from perceived narcissism. Foucault was much better. Derrida is the poster child for unnecessary jargon. Physicists use big words to describe phenomena who’s essence cannot be properly described without it. Derrida, either because he was examining it at a ridiculously meta level or to sound extra smart and gatekeepy. Which if unintentional by some magic, still makes his work even more subject to the flaws he points out towards the reliability of language and meaning. The mere fact that a major point of his deconstructionist thought was that the meaning of words are dependent on their relationships to other words and concepts, and their ability to be generally understood by a society to have some known meaning, which he argues isn’t static, makes his entire argument even more flawed. Why would you use jargon, which is only properly understood by your circle and who’s meaning is still up for debate? It makes it even more likely that the points you’re making will not he understood in the same way you conceptualized them outside of your echochamber. The Grammatology is full of this incomprehensible-outside-my-circle language. Postmodernist idea are fine when applied as a lens to many things: but the social constructivist and deconstructionist attitude of fleeting language doesn’t work on hard science, because the meaning of the phenomena can be studied to clarify what the words mean. An electron is an abstraction, but anyone can study their behavior to clarify any holes in the language used. Chemistry works or it doesn’t, and we’ve found holes in the logic and fixed them as we have made new abstractions to describe reality to better reflect the situation. Postmodernism just really has no good critiques of resulting hard science. The way these things are studied, sure. However, no matter how much I want to believe something is or isn’t a good model is easily disproven by empirical testing. Even Latour had to back peddle because he realised their arguments were being misconstrued to deny things we effectively know to be true now, such as climate change. Id argue there were better approached to critique how hard science was conducted, rather than trying to make a relativistic take on the epistemology of hard science.
Johnwaynelsd25 or, more correctly, he admits to not understanding it and proceeds to strawman it with extreme examples and cites a well debunked source to call it “embarrassing.” I love Noam. I will cry when he dies because his work has been so influential on the way I’ve been able to view the world. But if there’s anything embarrassing related to postmodernism (barring the extremes which are frankly ridiculous) it’s Chomsky’s critique of it.
@@bomb.throwing.mayhem5261 yeah. He does start with a sort of stated non-understanding. Eco did something similiar before turning to realism. I think their point is "we don't really get what postmodernists do... So, here's some thoughts on things we do get that we want to keep intact". Personally, I can live with that just so long as it doesn't become a postmodern bashing as seems trendy these days. It's a shift in thought that is really tough to just step into, though worthwhile I have found. That's alright though. I think Chomsky would like Society of Spectacle... Although that is not quite postmodernist.
I've read quite a bit of postmodernism but would have trouble summing up its high points, or the things that distinguish it from other schools of thought, in a succinct and intelligible way. Would any defenders of postmodernism take a crack at that for me? And second, I don't think Chomsky is saying it's all false or ridiculous, only that when postmodernists are right, and you take what they're saying and express it in ordinary language, it comes off as truism. It's not that it's always wrong. It's that, according to Chomsky, it doesn't add anything that we didn't already have access to via regular old critical discourse. He could be wrong. So what does it tell us that we didn't already know?
@@noisepuppet the problem with all of these critiques is that they're looking at this label monolithically. Are we talking about Deleuze's metaphysics? Derrida and deconstruction? Foucault's épistémè? Lacan's psychoanalysis? Are we including structuralists like Althusser or Lévi-Strauss? Most of these are still too general to be meaningful questions. En masse, the most frequent critique of these so-called postmodernists (so-called because most didn't accept the title anyway), is that it's too complicated. Perhaps, there is an inane complexity to some of the writers. However, most people making this criticism are entirely unwilling to engage in the terminology of the tradition. Finally, the idea that if you boil a concept down to its simplest, it becomes a truism: give me one example, and we'll see if this method of boiling down misses the point of the concept or can be done to all other philosophy.
I think i understand the grounds for Chomsky's critique but postmodernism is much more akin towards for example zen-buddhistic 'philosophy'. Since they both are looking towards paths of liberation from a representational mode of thinking. To see the world for what it is and be able to act as an independent creative agent you have to transcend logical reasoning, which can be attained through intellectual or meditational practice. This is what Heidegger called a 'nonreflective movement of thought' or in zen-buddhism known as 'non-thinking'. You may argue that well instead of doing this you should go out in the world and do a lot of activism, but if you are still caught in an ego-logical paradigm of thinking maybe your activism simply ends up maintaining and sustaining the sort of structures that you wish to overthrow.
Kinda, but like he’s always pointed out, that’s basically truism territory, and the notion that things are culturally conditioned isn’t actually original to PoMo, even if PoMo thinkers/writers went much further with that then prior philosophers had..
They are similar movements that state “there is no overarching structure to explain the world”, only multiple relativistic voices. They are both nihilistic solipsisms, although Lyotard, to me, is a more on point philosopher than Foucault.
Blaming french for this so called "post-modernism" that is currently happening in american colleges doesn't make sense. Ideas from post-structuralist philosophers aren't that prominent in french universities, and the word post-modernism isn't even used... Furthermore, while the idea of a universal truth, and progress toward that truth, may be more questioned in France than in the US, it is also done in a different way. No one in France ever tried to aply Foucault's ideas on a social level. In France you perfectly have the right to say things that you don't believe, and everyone understands it. To utter extreme position in public or among friends, for the sake of the argument, is something people like to do. But this rarely leads (up until now, as the US are exporting many things) to major disqualifications of individuals or fields.
COW BOY I think so. Fascists supposedly use metanarratives to mobilize people against each other. Post-structural/deconstructive readings of texts seek to point out the arbitrary and fictional aspect of apparently true statements, and render the tool of metanarrative inert. In short, interrupting the power of tyrrany to manufacture consent.
Foucault said his work was intended as tool that anyone could use. A lot of Foucault critics (or even Derrida critics) get caught up in ridiculous hysterics because they believe Foucault or Derrida or others intended their work as an ontology or a destroyer of being or a political philosophy etc. If a person uses Foucault (structural genealogy of power-knowledge) as a tool they are on the right track. If a persons uses Derrida as a form of hermeneutical interpretation, well hermeneutics is already irrational you can use it as a creative interpretative tool.
This is the 5th interview I've seen him discuss postmodernism, in which he avoids engaging the topic in favor of comtempt and dismissal. This is like watching Jordan Peterson discuss Marxism.
Derrida emphasized the transcending structure of language. The significance of insignificance; language as a phenomenon. in all his brilliance, Chomsky, at times, underscores his own intellectual peripheries, which seem strikingly narrow. Thx for the post.
What the hell does "transcending structure of language" even mean. We already know that the meaning of language is hard to grasp and fluid and experience-based and depends on the context that the speaker thinks the hearer has. We don't need people like Derrida come in and sound smart by telling this in 8 foot long words arranged into practically meaningless books and papers while not helping anybody actually figure out this mess.
Post-Modernism is theory for the sake of the theory and it is nihilism in disguise. Some Post-modernists pretty much say as much. Chomsky points out that in the 70's all the Maoists and Stalinists, who were treated like Rock stars by students, change their tone, right after Solzhenitsyn gets published in fact. The main thing to understand is by using humour, irony and by lampooning reality you can take any interpretation of any idea/philosophy from any place or era, sew a bunch of these ideas together [Intertextuality] and all of a sudden, just like that, you are as intelligent as all the people you stole your ideas from, by association = Theory for the sake of theory. Without actually believing in it yourself because it's "Ironic" = Nihilism. The problem also, is originally certain parts of a narrative were considered to be subjective or part of a social construct which isn't a bad idea when you're interpreting novels, movies, music, pop culture but, then it leaks into Politics and Science and the subjective narrative is now ALL and the facts are considered subjective??? Nonsense! They were all charlatans and some of them were up to some questionable things with young people, including their own students. Attention seeking posh brats who appeal to needy little children looking for a Parent figure. Most importantly, like Chomsky, I don't think it resembles anything "Left-Wing" at all. If anything they unwittingly describing the Nazi party. What was the Nazi Party if not Nihilistic with a ton of Intertextuality to dress it up as "Radical".
This conversation represents what one could call the "hayseed" approach to philosophy: "Wall none a' that makes much sense, just a lotta blabber from these fancy city folk." It's clear that Chomsky hasn't read much in the literature he's belittling or if he has he hasn't understood a word of it. But, equally clearly, he feels threatened by it. It's important to note, by the way, that there are important distinctions to be made between poststructuralism and postmodernism that Chomsky seems totally unaware of.
he's completely right. philosophers and economists use obscurantisms as a tool to make people afraid of it and value it more because of it. they want most of the people mortified by their work just like the average joe is scared by equations
Chomsky's singular focus on the structure and rigor of scientific fields of inquiry is telling with regard to his academic ideal. This is crystallized in his own claim to fame, the search for the elusive "universal grammar". Chomsky sees the human mind as a structure, a machine in mass production. Chomsky is looking for the code to an enigmatic computer, as is befitting of the more analytically-minded thinker he is. But man is just a glorified animal, with all the internal and social baggage that comes with it. Where postmodernism succeeds for me is in displacing the reader from their inborn mindset, to remind people of the caveats of our own success. It is a critique right out of Marx's school: not a suggestion to be put into practice (as doing so would deprive us of our humanity), but a radical critique of the status quo.
why the gamer becomes a soldier is the Modernist/structuralist question - the complexity of its logic is intended to emphasize on the inference of creation and outcome; rather, the Classicist questions historical behaviors and character traits of the gamer and the soldier - why does one game? why does one soldier? hence, the causation of industrial domination has made us aware of its harmful bi-products. Modernism, Structuralism attempts to see its relationship than its reasons to exist.
does knowam anything about art or literature? maybe not, but has a monosyllabic theory about innate language structure and I bet prickly schemata toboot.
This is one of the few areas where Chomsky is clearly wrong. 1) The idea that post-structuralist philosophers or cultural theorists are using complicated language just for the sake of being complex, as some form of ego stroke is absurd. It's complicated by design, but it's because it has to be. The very areas they're critiquing are language and reason itself, so using language and reason overtly begs the question. Go read Kant's first Critique; a work straight out of the modern period and probably in the top five most important academic works of all time. It is incredibly difficult to understand and has plenty of polysyllabic words that Kant made up to explain epistemic theory. I don't see Chomsky complaining about how Kant is being obscurantist to look more intelligent and complex, yet those same criticisms were levied at Kant immediately after his work was published. Or if you want a better example, take a look at Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathmatica; a several-volume work with several hundred pages of dense axiomatic set theory devoted to proving the validity of the expression 1+1=2. Philosophy was already hard prior to the second half of the 20th century. There's absolutely no need for people to inflate the difficulty of it. It got more difficult because the very tools we use to analyze the world are what's being analyzed now, so you need to come up with rather interesting ways to critique them without using them. Try critiquing language without using language. 2) The idea that you can state all of the conclusions of postmodernism in simple easy to understand language as truisms or tautologies is just stupid. Post-structuralists aren't really interested in proving the validity of whether women aren't properly represented in the sciences or other trivial assertions like that. They *take that for granted* and use it as a springboard to assess what it means about the validity of sciences when the interpretation of data comes from one singular perspective. *That's* the interesting observation, not the obvious fact that women aren't properly represented. Anyone can figure that out by simply looking at the field in question and counting the people working in it. 3) The point about Bruno Latour. This is essentially just the Sokal affair restated; that you can find a few characters involved in postmodern work that come to crazy conclusions and get published means nothing. Also, if the game we're playing is "what field publishes the most junk in peer review", then science as a whole takes the cake. www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-09/aof-rnw092515.php science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716.abstract Note that the first two are likely the two most respected journals on the planet. As for the Sokal Affair where Alan Sokal managed to publish absolute nonsense into some tiny academic journal as proof that the humanities had lax standards when it came to reputable articles, say hi to Andrew "vaccines cause Autism" Wakefield, who managed to get his bullshit published in The Lancet; the aforementioned most respected journal on the planet. The only difference is that Sokal's bullshit hurt nobody but the credibility of some philosophers. Wakefield and indirectly, The Lancet likely have blood on their hands for essentially creating the modern anti-vaccination movement by publishing garbage science. Science is immensely important to the advancement of humanity, but pretending as though it's some infallible process and that scientists aren't subject to external factors which color their judgment of findings is absurd. Science is not done in a vacuum. Ironically enough, this is one of the main areas in which postmodernism focuses its critique on; what does science look like when we accept that the conclusions of science are arrived at through some degree of interpretation, and that that interpretation is created through that person's subjective understanding of the world. Hello phenomenology.
Except Postmodernism doesn't just say that Science, that is Natural Philosophy, is sometimes mistaken or gets things wrong. It outright says that Reason is a social construction, there is no truth, everything is power projections, the self doesn't exist, etc. The list goes on and on. You can try to doll up Science Studies all you want, and I'll admit that on paper it sounds fairly grand and worthwhile. The problem is that it's a lie and just a cover for radical social constructivism.
Michael Lovell _"It outright says that Reason is a social construction, there is no truth, everything is power projections, the self doesn't exist, etc."_ And this is the strawman version of postmodernism that people use to discredit the actual perspective because they're too lazy to understand the actual position postmodernists make. Likely you'll point to the usual suspects like Paul Feyerabend who did say things like this however he was a fringe minority that got semi-famous by being provocative rather than insightful.
I've read Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva and even some Lacan (who was completely and I would say purposefully unintelligible). While they are all different in various respects, none of them are particularly compelling with the slight exception of Foucault. The only reason Foucault was interesting was that his analysis of discourse or "power" was applicable to historical analysis. The only thing was that while it seemed "new" to the field of history, it really wasn't new at all. Historians had long been using methods similar to his. Derrida confused aesthetics with metaphysics. Foucault was completely amoral, at least in his academic assertions. I'm sure at a personal level he really wasn't. And no, I don't have to name Paul Feyerabend. I was actually thinking more along the lines of Lawrence Cahoone. There is a good reason why most philosophers, even of the Continental Tradition, don't take Postmodernism very seriously. And it's not just philosophers either who have noticed these rather extreme ideas coming from po-mo. Well regarded sociologists, such as Michel Wieviorka have noted its effects on other fields outside lit. crit. in sociology, anthropology, etc. And even those who seek to save anthropology (rather incoherently I would say) such as William Reddy (an anthropologist and historian) have noted po-mo's hatred for the Subject or the Self. It's far from a lazy assertion on my part. If anyone is actually lazy, it's the postmodernists who simply cry all the time that they are misunderstood. I'm sorry, but after 40 years of them crying "We're so misunderstood," one should really begin to think that they are simply crying wolf. In short, the emperor has no clothes.
Michael Lovell _"I've read Foucault, Derrida, Kristeva and even some Lacan (who was completely and I would say purposefully unintelligible)"_ They're obscurantists. They're just not obscurantists for the reason Chomsky is implying. Also, Lacan is easily coherent. If it weren't, there wouldn't be a subset of Lacanian psychoanalysis taught to psychologists. I'm guessing you didn't get an intro to Saussurian Linguistics which is essential to understanding him. _"There is a good reason why most philosophers, even of the Continental Tradition, don't take Postmodernism very seriously."_ Not even remotely true. There's almost no chance a lecture of continental philosophy will not touch on a philosopher of the postmodern tradition, even if that's structuralism or post-structuralism. They offer entire courses dedicated to the subject, and it's not as though I went to some R1 research school. I went to a state-run regional university; hardly an institution with limitless funds to fritter away on trivial issues. _"Well regarded sociologists, such as Michel Wieviorka have noted its effects on other fields outside lit. crit. in sociology, anthropology, etc. And even those who seek to save anthropology (rather incoherently I would say) such as William Reddy (an anthropologist and historian) have noted po-mo's hatred for the Subject or the Self."_ And Stephen Hawking, possibly the greatest scientist of the last half century thinks philosophy is dead, despite not realizing the irony in that statement. You know what this tells you? That people who are specialists need to stay in their specialization and not begin criticizing things they don't understand or learn why people who study postmodernism take it seriously instead of reflexively dismissing them. _"I'm sorry, but after 40 years of them crying "We're so misunderstood," one should really begin to think that they are simply crying wolf."_ No, after 40 years of people like Chomsky complaining that they don't understand it, despite being a genius and preeminent in his field, maybe he should ask someone who does in order to understand it instead of making hackneyed strawmen against it. He said that he doesn't understand it, that they are perfectly sincere in their work, and that they must understand it themselves because they talk about it among each other. So there's nothing keeping him from asking them and learning about it himself. _"In short, the emperor has no clothes."_ Not really. Nobody outside of philosophy or literary criticism takes postmodernism seriously due to the successful attacks made by prominent scientists during the science wars. Also, I find it particularly telling that you ignored all of my actual responses to what Chomsky said. I've noticed people doing this nowadays; instead of responding to the points I made, they'll just write a perfunctory dismissal of my general point, as if that automatically refutes my individual points. It doesn't, and my criticism, like Kuhn's criticism of academic science is valid until disproven.
I do not think Chomsky was dismissing the entire body of contemporary work in the social sciences. It is obvious however to someone who has picked up some of the texts used in college social science courses that a lot of what is taught is simply common sense all dressed up in unnecessary fancy language. There is undoubtedly very important work done in these fields but I find it is relatively easier to concoct seemingly insightful but superficial theories in the social sciences than it is in mathematics or physics for example. It is reasonable to assume that a lot of so called intellectuals take advantage of this to feel good about themselves.
Chomsky makes the same observation as Jordan Peterson here: the former Maoists et al replaced their ideology with postmoderism. This shouldn't be controversial, but for lefties preoccupied with 'purity' (and ironically corrupted with post modernism), the same words from Peterson are taken as an expression of his supposed 'right wing' ideas.. they can't say Chomsky is arguing for the status quo.
bev: I noticed that to. But Chmpsky said it first, and better. Peterson stole it and then said it worse. And while Chompskie's points are debatable, Peterson's are just wrong, period.
Chomsky is very wrong too. Just like any other philosopher who discards French School of Postmodern philosophy, it is a mark that someone does not, does not, understand what their work and French culture is about. From everything I've seen about Chomsky is that he's just a bitter old person who's angry at other people being smarter than him. He knows alot, sure, but if you can't give any kind of interpretation to what you know then what's the point of knowing it? I mean, postmodernism exists for a reason and it's very successful as a philosophy exactly because it was a natural consequence of modernism. People who don't understand this and condemn postmodernism are often the ones leaping behind, not the ones trying to run the front. Now if you wanna try and look smart by being critical about postmodernism you're still a postmodern individual because more than likely you will use postmodern motives to describe your analogies. It's inescapable and maybe that's why it causes so much frustration. But hey, that's life.
I agree with the point of most postmodernism. But Chomsky had no clue what Foucault was trying to demonstrate. Chomsky wants to maintain a naive progressive point of view. Foucault was pointing out things that were both obvious and frightening that many do not want to believe it is actually true. Chomsky rotates around Foucault's "moral relativism" and missed the point big time. Foucault himself as a person did not have a morally relativist point of view. But used objective structuralism to illuminate the moral relativism of humanity. No one wants to believe it. I think the third Reich and the holocaust pushes the fact into our face. Foucault and Hannah Arendt both pointed to a certain ammoral factor in humanity. Both were punished for pointing it out.
I am sorry for Chomsky cause i think he is stuck in his own mind. He is critizicing Pairs not ideas. Foucaults work on power is one of the absolute moost appliable written theories analysing power. Foucault gives tools to all of us to step out of our i would say before Foucault non visible system of power into giving people tools for seeing and understanding how oppression and power works.
06:49 Interesting, Jordan Peterson says the exact same thing about how post-modernism began: That in the 1970s the intellectuals who'd considered themselves avowed Marxists couldn't square their views anymore with the reality of what was happening in the USSR and Mao's China, so they made a shift to what is now termed 'post-modernism'
except he's an idiot who doesn't actually understand what postmodernism means, he conflates postmodernism, Marxism, authoritarianism and identity politics all as one big nonsense thing interestingly a lot of what Peterson does, critiquing metanarratives, is a very postmodern habit
This is beneath Chomsky. In one breath he says he doesn't understand Postmodernism, then he says it makes him cringe. By his own admission he says he doesn't understand it, yet he denounces it. And reading some of these posts is troubling. It is obvious they haven't read anything about postmodernism, yet they condemn it. Life can be complicated, so if you are expecting 'common sense' to explain everything to you rather than serious study of the subject, then you probably shouldn't be listening to videos such as this. They will confuse you.
Just couldn't make friend with them French Intellectuals. in a way it's a good thing, it makes me want to read Lacan, though come to think of it, maybe i should check postmodernist art, it must exist. But i'll read an overview of their work by someone on their side since i already know about people that just can't contenance intellectuals being not receptive to other intellectuals of the libertarian vaguely anarchist vaguely pre-Lenin Marxist kind ... calling them pompous fools that dont even make sense in their $200 shirts and the million dollars apartments in a très chic arrondissement. Then again maybe Lacan was a poor intellectual that lived in a hippie commune back in the dayz of youth
It's very unlikely that Chomsky can look down on every post-modernists as pompous fools that write things that he can't make sense of. It's very unlikely that they sold all their books to people that could voluntarily read through thick books from pompous fools that write things that Chomsky can't make sense of.
Well Chomsky still has time to apologise to those 80 years old post-modernists that he publicly poopooed. You know the classic "agree to disagree" and auld lang syne inimitiés be gone.
Poor old man. To think you know so much, and prove so little by your pure disqualifications to the things you just don't understand. Such a poor view of the world.
This can’t be serious. Really? Chomsky is famous for doing his homework. Doesn’t this approach seem too reductive? Wouldn’t it be better to actually address a particular notion in that literature and critique it? Cuz I think their understanding on Science is often misunderstood by scientists so the book he referred to is not a good example of serious critique. This notion on the philosophical limitations of science started with Heidegger. So how about a philosophical critique on his metaphysics notion to begin? I have a good feeling about what he’s saying. He might be on to something. But needs to do the work and expand it so its not just a feeling but a rigorous argument.
Chomsky is correct when he discusses how French intellectuals can be alienating, but those same French intellectuals are not painting a picture of the world that isn't true. The world is postmodern and biopolitical. May 68 in Paris is an example of where meaning overflows, and the normal antagonism that Chomsky holds dear loses meaning, and where his idealistic conception of language isn't forceful enough to enact social change. What Chomsky belittles, that smog coming from Paris, isn't something that is particular to Paris in the 70s, but how a globalised, biopolitical, capitalistic world looks like, where the sign of signified and signifier no longer is complete.
This video demonstrates that the communist apologist Chomsky occasionally is both coherent and accurate when commenting outside of his field of expertise, i.e., linguistics. Remarkable…
Chomsky's point on the French intellectuals supporting totalitarian regimes is made reductive by Chomsky's very own support for the Khmer Rouge. These academics wished to see their vision of Utopia realised within these insular communist counties, and then once the horrors came to light it became impossible to support such regimes. Chomsky is guilty of this exact same thing.
@@breadandwater7038 You say he knows very little about postmodernism and that his whole speech is a fallacy and that his thought on the subject is unfounded. In what way? What do you disagree with? What points of his do you find faulty?
The thing is: what Chomsky is doing precisely what Derrida outlined: that we can only speak through the prism of our own logic. There's no getting around it. Chomsky is a structuralist. He only operates according to a set of rules of which he cannot possibly escape. Derrida (as exemplary of the post structuralist) never said there's no meaning or anything of a sort. He wasn't some sort of leftist nickenpoop of the sort Noam is alluding to. Yet he is at the centre of what Noam decries as irrational. As a linguist i dont understand Chomsky sometimes. Look... He's been pressed on UG and some other contentious things.... And they are contentious. Even within Linguistics depts. But Noam's pseudo scientific thought on aspects of psycholinguistics is often backed up by him just saying Ok... Prove me wrong. Its as much an obfuscation as anything the French ever came up with. I mean, Chomsky aint no astrophysicist
