/lit/ - Literature

The old white dude

Their theories are entirely different and unrelated. They can both be right

Is Kenneth Burke any good?

>>3242232
No, you obviously have not read either of their works. One contradicts the other.

>>3242228
Chomsky is a linguist who made a career on his intellectual feats. Derrida is a pseudo-philosopher who made a career out of being a marketable Paris-intellectual.

>>3242260
Looks like someone ain't smart enough for the big D

>>3242260
>>3242260

and you, YOU, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU?

Deleuze is best : toward a minor litterature.

Kafka.

I think there is more "proof" going for Chomsky's deep grammar, even though it's not completely accepted in the linguistic community, but Derrida's philosopher is such that it does not an can never have positive evidence that it is correct.

It can only point out "look, there's a fuck up, erge deconstruction is right."

Don't get me wrong, I'm sympathetic to Derrida, but this aspect of deconstruction gets pretty arrogant because it essentially does nothing but write off other's positivistic work as false without replacing it with anything positive itself. I like Derrida, but I can never see him as great.

>>3242307
I really think Deleuze is the worst of the post-structuralists. His work will hold up very badly in time.

What does Deleuze well, Derrida does better and more rigorously and coherently.

>>3242323

Have you read "A thousand Plateaux" mate ?

His lectures at Vincenne are amazing

David Crystal all the way.

>>3242311
How is making a claim about the impossibility of positive claims not itself a positive claim? It's hard to know what you can build from there, but if the critique holds water...

>>3242311
Oh, you're still utilizing the positive-negative binary and haven't checked your privileges! The event of your deconstruction is nigh!

Have you guys seen the "debate" between Foucault and Chomsky? Foucault speaks in French, Chomsky in English, and they sit there pretending to understand each other.

It's excruciatingly cringe-worthy to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj2VJ7oexKc

>>3244967
>thinking talking past one another isn't a hallmark of academic excellence

>>3242228
Early Luddy Dubs Wittysteen

>>3244967
they understand one another pretty well, chomsky didn't even need a translation

also, their research and work are on different topics, even though both concern power. it's more of a "panel" then it is a debate. i'm not sure who decided to call it a debate, but it was a poor choice. it WOULD have been a debate if it was like

>anarcho-syndicalism is the best
>no it isn't we need the state for [x], [y], [z] reasons
>well you're wrong because [x] and [y] can be accomplished by [thing] and [z] will come later

but they're fundamentally talking about different things. chomsk is an idealist or prescriptive (in the sense that he works with ideals), whereas foucault is more descriptive

>>3244967
They talk past each other so hard.

It's not a real debate but Chomsky won it.

>>3244967
Chomsky looks like Peter Sellers there.

Imagine an evil doctor linguistic.