everyone here hates him but i've never seen a criticism outside of
>he's an idiot
why is he so wrong?
He plays it safe.
My only complaint is he isn't willing to question 9/11 the same way he did for the other stuff, even though it is so tantamount to current US foreign policy.
No matter how he writes if off, it is still a gaping hole.
>why is he so wrong?
He's a jew.
"In an interview with Press TV on Wednesday, Professor James Henry Fetzer said, Chomsky “neglects to observe that 9/11 was a false flag operation; he neglects to observe that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was deliberately contrived by the powerful special interests in the US.”"
1. He's an apologist for Bin Laden and other violent enemies of the United States
2. His entire critique of American foreign policy boils down to "it's imperialism" (please read Realist scholars such as Mearsheimer and Schelling for a more accurate and less problematic assessment of the reasoning behind U.S. foreign policy and especially defense policy - I am not saying they're right but you'll get a much better explanation for the reasoning behind modern American foreign policy than "imperialism and control, guiz!")
Philip Lieberman's Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain
Michael Tomasello's work
Stephen Levinson and Nicholas Evans' 'The Myth of Linguistic Universals'
Donald Davidson's work on language
Daniel Everett (depending on how you feel about Everett, it's controversial)
i don't mind chomsky. universal grammar and the propaganda model are fantastic.
people complain about his political stuff, but i don't think there's anything really wrong with it, it's just really dry. it's also associated with a certain brand of insufferable young political activists.
>a good professor
most boring classes I've ever taken in my life. please don't come on lit and talk about mid-tier scholars to try and show us how academic you want to be.
Lieberman demonstrates that what Chomsky claims is not plausible with regard to what we know about the brain.
Tomasello, Levinson, Evans and Everett from various sources show that the claims made by UG theorists are either not accurate with regard to linguistic typology, or otherwise construed in a way that basically makes them unfalsifiable.
Davidson is a special case in that he points out the ways in which theory about 'language' is prone to all sorts of reifications.
It's been 50 years since a lot of his works came out though. I wouldn't call that getting blown the fuck out, more of an expansion of the ideas. That's like saying modern physicists blow classical mechanics out of the water -- fundamentally wrong. We've added to a field, not blown out someone's work.
Actually, Chomsky still adopts fundamentally the same presuppositions about strong in-built constraints that he did in '56, it's just that it's described under the Minimalist program now. If you accept any of the arguments addressed by the authors I listed, he has indeed been blown the fuck out. It is NOTHING like the transition from Newton to Einstein and Bohr.
Take it from somebody who has actually studied the field - don't base your views on facile analogies. Linguistics is not physics.
don't know much about him at all, but his explanation of the U.S.'s involvement in Haiti was pretty fucking interesting to me.
how credible about this is he? does he have other stories like this?
are Lacan ideas incompatible with chomsky ideas?
I dont really know about linguistics, but I have this feeling that the hate against Zizek and Lacan is because some implication in their works.
>are Lacan ideas incompatible with chomsky ideas?
Not sure, that's a complicated question.
Chomsky sees himself as a scientist while Lacan generally subordinates science to psychoanalysis and what Chomsky calls 'posturing'.
>Jeopardising his entire career over some conspiracy theory bullshit
>Hating someone who called himself an anarco-socialist in the 1960s, putting his career at risk for "playing it safe"
Stay fucking moronic /lit/
it's the american shitposters, just ignore
often you'll find the meme criticism /lit/ parrots ever since it's seen it "his work in linguistics is great but his political stuff should be avoided!!"
9/10 of the times these people haven't read both
americans are so delusional that they think couldn't possibly be right about something he has studied for decades in his own country because he's anti-government and considered "edgy" or a "fedora tipper", both meme criticisms aswell
You're confusing "having an opinion on something and being published about it" with having genuinely studied it. No serious American intellectual who studies politics regards Chomsky's opinion as anything more than the blowhard garbage it is.
tbf, that's not a great argument, as your argument relies on your definition of 'serious' & your definition of 'serious' almost certainly includes 'doesn't take chomsky seriously'
so really all you're saying is "American intellectuals who don't take Chomsky seriously don't take Chomsky seriously"
How funny, I am being told to "read a book" by someone who is such an illiterate and so intellectually destitute that he or she actually believes Naom Chomsky to be a quality writer with worthwhile opinions! I think I am going to pass out from laughter!
I don't get why foreigners assume Americans are all super conservative patriot die hards. Just about everyone agrees that the US government is horribly mismanaged. Most people outright hate it. The issue generally isn't with acknowledging the multitude of problems, but instead trying to all agree upon a good solution.
His books are more than just opinions on foreign policy and world politics, they are mostly extremely dry recitations of facts from the public record. The only reason people see him as "extreme" is because the facts make it clear that the US is responsible for remarkable amounts of state terrorism. I have never seen any critic of his ever dispute anything he has written.
Here's the thing, people have different opinions about government and governance. His work in linguistics is more of a science. Critiquing politics is just an easy way to sell books.
Both of you could at any point mention your sources or at least explain why you think that way citing some examples.
You could bring up the times Chomsky intentionally quoted dubious sources or the times he was the only one presenting recordings of first hand experience. Anything would be a better discussion that "nuh, you suck"
>I don't think political writers should say much more than the bare bones facts
Political writers exist to support things a posteriori, that's why people can actually live off being in a think tank.
There re no bare bones facts, you have to interpret data tog et a conclusion. To make the most basic reading you have to take also take in considerations the conditions it was taken, making it an interpretation of something that may have happened.
>Yes, the facts. The data.
What do you think facts are for the public? You can't make people be there even if you want, and it's much easier to make data say whatever you want.
>make money out of opinions
By supporting things that already exist.
>What do you think facts are for the public?
Political writers are part of the public.
>You can't make people be there even if you want
Which people? Be where?
>and it's much easier to make data say whatever you want.
Depends on how the data is gathered.
>By supporting things that already exist.
He has some point of views that i dont agree with but politically speaking, in murika, he is some of the fews intellectuals who actually knows what is happening overseas. Ask an american where is india, and they will say it is in the fucking middle east.
Most of the americans dont know how much money is spent in Israel, and how much sionists jews are in important positions of gorvenement, and media. Just clear out these fucking people out of your country.
OP here, my question goes on unanswered by the people who don't like him
i need specifics. please no more"good linguistics, shit politics," that means literally nothing. you all are giving off the feeling that you've never read him/listened to a lecture and just don't like him because everyone else doesn't
i'm willing to accept he's an idiot but some please give me an actual reason why
I don't hate him at all. His Rationalism is nonsense, but I fall into roughly the same political sphere as he does.
Hes nice to have around because he isn't afraid to call out the American State on its bullshit. Everyone in the US hates or distrusts the Government anyway.
I actually am a big fan of Chomsky. I just posted that since that's the number one thing people link me to when I say that I just read a Chomsky book. I actually think Bagdonor's points here are all wrong.
lib soc? thoought i was the only one
The differences between those are irrelevant, so I don't know what you could want.
Just read economists, the only important thing is working out a functional economic system where large swathes of it are owned collectively/cooperatively. Keynsianism lends itself very well to this, and Alec Nove has a good book on the subject (The Economics of Feasible Socialism).
You can always read Lenin, Bakunin, Proudhon, etc if you want abstract theory.
It wasn't written by Derrida himself but by his biographer, Benoit Peeters.
It describes well-known instances of Lacan being a manipulative, slimy cunt towards Derrida and abusing his friendship to increase his own academic clout. He did the same to Felix Guattari and many of his 'patients'.
Linguisticsguy from before, I was just wondering if you could tell me which one? I've read several of Everett's articles but I haven't seen anything that discusses Chomsky's personal/professional behaviour specifically.
>A year after Baltimore another dinner took place in Paris, at the home of Jean Piel. Lacan clasped Derrida’s hand warmly in his oily palms and asked him what he was working on. Plato, the pharmakon, letter, origins, logos and mythos: He was preparing a text for Tel quel. [. . .] Once again, [Lacan] announced how curious it was that he too had already spoken of the same themes. His students could vouch for it. Derrida spoke tothe psychoanalyst and told him the following anecdote. One evening, as his son Pierre was beginning to fall asleep in his mother’s presence, he asked his father why he was looking at him. ‘Because you’re handsome.’ The child reacted immediately by saying that the compliment made him want to die. Somewhat troubled, Derrida tried to figure out what the story meant. ‘I don’t like myself,’ the child said. ‘And since when?’ ‘Since I’ve known how to talk.’ Marguerite took him in her arms, ‘Don’t worry, we love you.’ Then Pierre broke out laughing, ‘No, all that isn’t true; I’m a cheater for life.’ Lacan did not react. Some time later, Derrida was dumbfounded to read the anecdote in the text of a lecture by his interlocutor delivered at the French Institute in Naples in December 1967. Lacan recounted it as follows: ‘I’m a cheater for life, said a four-year-old kid while curling up in the arms of his genitrix in front of his father, who had just answered, ‘You’re handsome’ to his question, ‘Why are you looking at me?’ And the father didn’t recognize (even when the child in the interim pretended he had lost all taste for himself the day
he learned to speak) the impasse he himself was foisting on the Other, by playing dead. It’s up to the father, who told it to me, to hear it from where I speak or not.
There are others but this is the main one that stuck in my memory.
He is a straight-forward, insightful public intellectual who is perhaps the most effective political critic with regards to providing evidence for his arguments. His solutions are nowhere near as clear and brilliant as his critiques; however, as far as exposing the truth of America's political anatomy, he is second to none (emphasis on political as opposed to cultural or economic, credits which could be afforded to other critics with more focus on those areas of study).
The funny part is that he's not a political scientist or a scholar of a related field like political history or political geography. His political writing is opinionated scribbling about a field that he is not trained in (which is why he does not understand it, and why his books are mostly appealing to readers who do not understand politics or political science) and which his background has fuck all to do with.
You're right about this. There seems to be a reactionary vein running through 4chan with the rationale of "not being fooled" by anti-establishment figures in a kind of counter-contrarian way. Most of the time all their criticisms amount to are insubstantial accusations of being "edgy" and something for "angsty teens to read" without any actual analysis or informed critique of their writings. I'm not saying Chomsky has all the answers but his work is based on empirical analysis of real life political events and power structures; although it is obviously framed within a certain ideological perspective he is still exploring the right questions about the world.
also, all encounters with his linguistic theory in my studies have been academics chuckling at how wrong his theories turned out to be.
however they're quite one sided and are constantly pushing their own shitty theory down our throats about connectivism.
So Lieberman claims that language comes from certain area of the brain while Chomsky has more of a pseudo science psychological belief that we are born with it?
Im not too familiar with either
Actually, his linguistics work has mostly been discredited and is largely considered useless by the majority of linguistics academia. Only in the US is he still a big deal, and even then there is a large camp against his ideas. Some even say that he's held the field back for decades with ideas that lead to nowhere. So no, his ideas are pretty much useless now with regards to linguistics and he shouldn't be paraded as such.
Because their whole experience with America is through their own media with its exaggerated claims or through 4chan memes taken for face value. I've never meet a single person who thinks our government is infallible, but from what I get from here this is how all Americans think. It's probably the most accepted meme on this site by non-Americans.
Linguistics and hard science are very different fields. Even if a scientist's theories are later disproved it's kind of important that they laid the groundwork for future research. While the same can be said of some linguistics, many of Chomsky's linguistic theories are so fundamentally flawed at a base level that there's nothing legitimate for future scholars to build on or extrapolate from.
Because we're looking at the U.S. from a p.o.v. that Americans have little knowledge of, and in comparison, you are often just that. With the amount of culture you export, and the amount of news coverage and debate we get of the U.S., we simply know much more about you than you know about us, and therefore we're able to make better comparisons, and often in comparison, what you consider normal is to us the same as being patriotic, conservative die hards.
>we simply know much more about you than you know about us
Really, because most "foreign knowledge of Americans" I've seen here is just le_hamborger_meme.jpg and calling Americans rude or fat
Astrophysicist here, Thales of Miletus has been blown the fuck out from so many different directions it's not even funny.
>So Lieberman claims that language comes from certain area of the brain while Chomsky has more of a pseudo science psychological belief that we are born with it?
not exactly - nobody disputes that we're born with a propensity for language and that it has some kind of structure, but chomsky's formulation is incredibly rigid
>but his political stuff should probably be ignored.
What the hell are you talking about. It's some of the best documented stuff out there. If there's one thing Chomsky's good at, it's contemporary American politics (also the propaganda model is fairly useful).
No one is criticizing Americans for thinking their government is infallible. People criticize American Exceptionalism, which is widespread in the US and probably even more widespread in the beliefs of those in charge. It's really hard to find someone who doesn't think that the US is the best, or at least was the best, country in the world
Ah Shit, I'm doing the same thing. Just remember to have a diverse reading of economists. That includes Austrians and neo-libs as well. They might have something interesting to say which could be used.
Actually, the anarchist/lib-soc side seem to be becoming more interested in economics. it's a growing trend. With any luck, there will be a boost in the movement. It's been kinda stagnant for a long time (at least in the west).
As a linguist, he is of paramount importance. He's the biggest deal since Saussure. It doesn't matter if he's wrong - he is nonetheless a giant there, and any linguist must at least tango with him a bit if they're to live up to their job description.
As a political "thinker," I would agree with others that he's a bit bland and doesn't bring much to the table, but he is good at making radical ideas digestible for the unwashed masses of vaguely liberal White middle-class suburban America. He naturally gives off an air of authority.
I do? The richest country in the world with the best universities and most dominant military is producing culture that the entire planet wants in on, so much so that individual countries are willing to destroy their thousand-year old traditions just to participate in America's glory
America is exceptional, regardless of whether or not you are happy about it
America's "exceptionalism" comes from astute geopolitical policy and presence, and not the virtues of our culture. We're the biggest market and the biggest world power, so there is natural gravitation towards satisfying that audience.
We're simply the biggest consumer.
all i actually know about chomsky is that he is some professor, but every thread i come in and tell people how much i appreciate his work in linguistics but that his political ideology is extremely flawed and should thus be avoided. in all honestly i have zero knowledge of his work (i really don't even know what linguistics are) and i know zilch about his political agenda. i'm a dropout who works at a fucking mcdonalds and the last full book i read was fucking james and the giant peach in sixth grade but damn everything if i don't come here everyday and talk down about chomsky
>"i really don't even know what linguistics are"
>burger king dropout
>hasn't read a book in a decade
reminder that you spend three hours a day arguing about david foster wallace with these people
Yeah most fields of knowledge do not have the possibility of being super quantitative. That is all pseudo science means. Does not mean knowledge is not worth knowing. So fuck off you're the worst kind of disengaged idiot. The unintelligent STEM kid trying to seem more curious or informed than he is based on his undergrad major he barely understands.