/lit/ - Literature

>>3958051
For those wanting cliffs:
>Chonsky calls Zizek a charlatan
>Zizek responds by stating that he has never known anyone to be more empirically wrong than Chomsky.
>Chomsky calls Zizek's bluff; shows his ignorance of what constitutes an empirical fact and further accuses him of posturing and living in "fantasies".

Things aren't looking good for Zizek's rep, in other words.

>>3958056
Chomsky shows Zizek's ignorance of what constitutes an empirical fact, I meant.

>/fantasies-by-noam-chomsky

>>3958056
Chomsky is answering to a transcription from an informal conversation. It was a chit-chat among a number of intellectuals and zizek was giving some off the bat comments.

and so the saga of talking past one another continues

in zizek's defense there's no right way to respond to a charge of charlatanism. What is one supposed to say, "actually I am saying something meaningful?" or just repeat one's claims? (which, I suppose, come to the same thing.)

this has all been shit-slinging and I'd have at least expected chomsky to latch onto the brief substantive moments in what zizek said (his relation to the notion of ideology). then again i'd at least expect zizek not to resort to ad hominems. the whole ordeal is embarrassing.

look how disgusted herr hegel is

>>3958063
>trying this hard to apologize for Zizek.

Just let it go, friend.

>>3958069
Nah, chomsky is really silly person that has always adopted strawman arguments and ad hominems against anyone he didn't like.
Seeing him being now the paragon of intellectual rigor is like seeing dawkins being an advocate for close reading.

>>3958065
I think that the remedy to this whole thing would be for Zizek to actually come forward with some empirical evidence and whatnot to support his goofy Lacanian/Heglian obscurantism. That, or at least I thought, stemmed to be the initial problem that Chomsky perceived in regards to the thinking of Zizek.

>>3958061
Would wear.

>>3958065
Hegel, stop posting you stupid charlatan.

>>3958082
the interesting thing is that zizek's works are, in general, not that highly theoretical; they're riddled with examples and expressions of theoretical movements.

without any concrete textual support a charge of "charlatanism" or "obscurantism" just thrown out into the world as chomsky did is just a form of abuse, and is as intellectually reprehensible as zizek's khmer comments

>>3958085
"If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right."

#rekt

Umad, Hegelians?

>>3958085
lol have fun moping around in ur Will like a loser while I'm sublating pussy all day in Absolute Spirit, nerd

>>3958087
I have only read a little by zizek, but I found him much more lucid and concrete than lacan or derrida. That said, his comment about chomsky was idiotic.

>>3958087
Exactly.

Also take an article as this:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/slavoj-zizek/trouble-in-paradise

You may agree or not agree but it is perfectly clear what he means and what he proposes and it's much better than 90% of commentaries around.

>>3958089
>that outfit
>that fucking hat

Lel

And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me.


>and so on
>and so on
>and so on

based chomsky

>>3958063
This is an important point. Chomsky attacks Zizek in this instance for not providing empirical evidence when he was just talking to people. Does Chomsky expect Zizek to have all his sources memorized? I can see Chomsky corrected Zizek for mistalking, but he attacks him directly for not having sources in this instance. The claims that Zizek isn't clear/lucid are pretty shaky too. Most of the things I've read by Zizek have plenty of examples.

>>3958207
the point is zizek is just making shit up.

ANd, from interviews, it seems like chomky memorizes all his sources lol. not that it matters.

>>3958207
Honestly I think Chomsky's hostility towards Zizek stems from Zizek's connection to Lacan. He considers taking Lacan seriously a sign of a weak mind.

>>3958207
>Does Chomsky expect Zizek to have all his sources memorized?

Probably, yes. Say what you want about Chomsky, he has incredible memory and always provides concrete examples and facts when arguing a point.

>>3958224
like that old ass calculus professor who has been teaching calc 2 for the last 35 years and just can't understand why it isn't totally obvious to everyone immediately chomsky's basically been doing the same shit for a long time he's basically a professional Israel-criticizer (not that there's anything wrong with that) so he can dedicate him self to memorizing israel/palestine minutiae most people don't have time for

>>3958223
Oh well, if chomsky says so.

Btw you know what was the point of contention between chomsky and lacan? Chomsky was surprised that lacan said "often I think more with my feet than with my head".
And chomsky thought he was being some kind of anti-scientific mystic while lacan was talking about embodied cogntion. Since then chomsky thought of lacan as a charlatan.

Oh lel

>>3958223
well i consider being an anarchist in your 80s a sign of peter pan syndrome so put that in your pipe and smoke it

>>3958244
Do you have a source for this?

>>3958217
I agree with Chomsky in correcting Zizek's false claims, but I don't agree with Chomsky's claims that Zizek is just an obscurantist with nothing substantial to say.

chomsky vs zizek is so wack i can't take it seriously, they both suck

>>3958251
It was in Roudinesco's biography of Lacan:

http://www.amazon.com/Jacques-Lacan-Elisabeth-Roudinesco/dp/0231101473/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

>>3958240
>like that old ass calculus professor who has been teaching calc 2 for the last 35 years and just can't understand why it isn't totally obvious to everyone immediately

Hahaha...I like Chomsky but that is a very good critique. I remember trying to read Failed States in high school and being overwhelmed at the shitton of facts and names that I didn't know.

>>3958263
Well, it contradicts anything I've heard from Chomsky himself. Chomsky claims, having met Lacan, that Lacan was actually a self-aware and decided charlatan.

>>3958285
Lacan was a person with a sense of humor and would not use the standard academic dry style. After all his ecrits open with buffon's quote "The style is the man".

So Lacan would often talk how a lot of psychoanalysis (and psychotherapy he was a trained psychiatrist who practiced in hospitals) is based on the fact that the patient believes that the doctor knows what is wrong with them while the doctor does not know at all.
But in order to keep the faith and the trust of the patient the doctor has to keep up the appearance of having an expertise in the matters of the patient (but how could he he doesn't even know the guy). That's why lacan would often say that the analyst is a fraud, because he is selling a knowledge that he does not have but will only get in time from the patient.

Naturally chomsky hears that and says "Ah-ha! He does admit to be a fraud then!"

>>3958065
well said, tripshit

>>3958076
still butthurt that book targeted at 12 year olds disproves your religion?

>>3958419
Nah I'm a strong atheist.

>>3958076
he's only the "paragon of intellectual rigor" because everyone else died...edward said was overrated but god i'd rather have him be "the one guy in america who supports palestine" than chomsky's geriatric ass

>>3958096
>dress like a clown to prove you're an intellectual
welcome to academia

>>3958980
Squatznoatz are the only things I believe in.

Uh, i thought we settled this debate ages ago. Lacan, Derrida and their postmodern buddies are complete frauds. Freud has been disproved in almost all points. Hegel, for the most part, is intelligent nonsense. Žižek is really just a mediocre thinker. Think of him as Sam Harris of the philosophical left.

>>3959071
Stay pleb analytic philosophy.
You have been trying to get rid of Hegel for fifty years and yet he always comes back,

I swear if there is an enemy of knowledge today it's analytic philosophy.

>>3959101

chomsky is like a postmodernist's worst nightmare. how many of their skirts has he lifted now?

>>3959145
it's just cuz he's still alive, once he croaks you'll see everyone will be like "we were just being polite cuz he was old, chompsky grammar is bogus and anarchism is childish, the end"

>>3959101
You just got trolled. That was a meme response.

bow @ chomsky

Zizek is such a loser

>>3958051
zizek will jump on this and accuse chomsky of racism, because of his use of the word slovenian.

>>3959269
We are all Yugoslavs, even those from the north.

>>3959269
i never took zizek seriously from day one since his biggest promoters in america are those rcp bob avakian freaks im like ok if these avakianfags dig him then fuck him he must be wack, turns out i was not wrong

>>3959276
is that so? I thought he wasn't close to them. Didn't one of these idiots challenge him to a debate?

>>3959281
he's not close to them but they try to legitimize themselves by making it sound like he and them are "equals", they did the same shit with cornell west...well, cornell west fucking sucks, i saw him speak a few times and it's the most vapid shit, he sounds good but says nothing, total flim flam man

The fact that Zizek is probably the most famous philosopher alive says very much about the state of decadence that philosophy is in.

>mfw no serious criticism of zizek's ideas.

>>3959071
>Hegel, for the most part, is intelligent nonsense.
This is the consesus on /lit/ that I've noticed over the years I've been here.
/lit/ truly is pleb.

>>3959509
The word you are looking for is not pleb, the word you are looking for is EUPHORIC

Just like the ideas of the people they are descended from, the fire eaters and know nothings

>>3959464
wtf are his "ideas"

>>3959525
Google zizek philosophy encyclopedia. There is a clear and concise summary of his ideas and project.

>>3959544
so you don't even know yourself but you still name drop him around lefty hippy chicks anyways yeah that's cool

Its so funny to keep hearing that /lit/ is far left when in reality it is nothing than a pure unbridled neoliberal creationist-science circlejerk

>>3959554
You've obviously been on /lit/ for all of 5 minutes so your observation must be true.

>>3959560
it's his first day doing guerilla marketing for random house, he'll get the hang of it by the end of the week

>>3959565
I, the person you just quoted in agreement, am the one who was defending Tao Lin in that other thread. Learn to spot samefags, m8.

>>3959560
The evidence so far points out towards it, so I believe it must be absolutely right

Now, teach me how isn't that /lit/'s philosophy

>>3959565
>guerrilla marketting
Just testing out a theory

>>3959552
No I'm on a phone. Don't feel like writing for someone who doesn't want to read.

>it doesn't even take 5 minutes nor more than 5 sentences to resume all of mankinds knowledge and experience

i can't take philosophers who have color photos seriously

>chomsky wiping the floor with that critical theory nonsense

>>3959464
This

>>3959464

The dude has essentially no ideas. That's the point. He says and writes a lot but it's all for the most part empty charlatanism with some capitalist critique and social criticism thrown into it. Essentially what Chomsky says: he's posturing (incidentally, like a big number of people on this board, so it's not surprising that many people are taking offense on /lit/).

You could go to that "postmodern generator" page and the text you get there is roughly as meaningful as any text by Zizek, with very few exceptions.

>>3960243
Except it is not so. Take for example how he was criticizing Chomsky by saying that today ideology is cynicism and how because of that normal critique of ideology (the kinda that says "hey guys corporations are evil") does not work anymore.
That's an idea, it was simply stated and very understandable. The fact that you can't see his ideas is because you don't want to see them.

Another idea: the conditions for action are never evident before the action. It's the simple idea that successful people are the one that act before they think they are ready, because if you reflect too much you think you are never ready.

>>3958051
Zizek has always been a pseudo-intellectual. He has never had anything interesting to say. I mean, he is an interesting character, but do his lectures have anything valuable in them? His critiques of academia are accurate, but any grad student who has attended a top university can say the same. Zizek makes a living off of the character he plays, not on his philosophical depth.

>>3959768
Love that feeling.
I get great satisfaction from seeing a dedicated intellectual with integrity (like Chomsky) taking the piss out of vacuous, self-defeating non-arguments.

>>3960560
I would also like to add that the postmodernist view has been tarnished with these charlatans like Zizek and the french intellectuals. Postmodernist themes actually have content. For example, Rorty, Quine, Putnam and other big name pragmatists include postmodernist themes in their writing. However, the difference is that their arguments have depth. They are not merely "posturing". Philosophy and the Mirror of nature was an attack on Modernity, but it was a well founded attack on Modernity. There was dept to the argument. There was reference to empirical facts, logic and historical analysis of the developments of thought. You cannot find these in Zizek, or at least I am yet to find them.

>>3960243
>Essentially what Chomsky says: he's posturing (incidentally, like a big number of people on this board, so it's not surprising that many people are taking offense on /lit/).

Good observation. Hypocrites always rush to defend their own.

>>3960455
>Another idea: the conditions for action are never evident before the action. It's the simple idea that successful people are the one that act before they think they are ready, because if you reflect too much you think you are never ready.

Didn't he say the exact opposite in a Big Think youtube video? That we need to not act and to think and reflect?

As much as I like Chomsky I think the end of his response is unfair. He is right about Zizek's lack of facts and his posturing but his characterization of Zizek as deluded by western propaganda (hence bringing up the KR) seems out of place. It seems more like Zizek was asked to respond to Chomsky calling him out and he pulled the KR example at random. I don't think Zizek ever claims KR victims are "worthy victims" while ET are "unworthy". Having heard Chomsky refer to his views on "worthy/unworthy" victims multiple times it seems out of place when used against someone on the far left.

>>3960593
>le implied continentals vs analytics argument

>>3960663
I never implied that. Rorty praised Heidegger.

>>3960593
Zizek is not a postmodern.

Shouldn't Chomsky have better things to do than to attack other Leftists? This is why Rightistfags will always rule the world. Christ, get your acts together!

>>3960924
But anon, Chomsky is the quintessential conservative by his own admission

In the long run, everything that is considered 'leftist' will be right wing, and part of the daily life in the future

So if you think by any stretch of imagination that anything that is 'leftist' exists as more than a label, and wins in any possible of a number of futures

It will be actually right wing, and probably the most brutal of all right wings

So, not to sound clicheish but, I would recommend my now fellow party peers from /lit/ to start readying up for the future

Pic very damn related

>>3958051
They're both acting like idiots

>>3960940
What does this 'readying up' entail? If you're talking about an opposition to the government, with your provocative 'obey' picture, I think it's a little too late for that. I do not think that any first world governments will ever be overthrown; they are just too strong.

>>3960967
Of course am not telling you to do that, am not a jacobin, am not expecting you to go out and get ripped limb to limb by the entirety of the corporate world

But as all of you may observe very clearly, there are over a trillion things in this world that are unacceptably wrong

And change has to begin somewhere, idk where myself, but I thought it'd be a good idea to leave the thought around

Also as an invitation to /pol/, because, aside from the usual shitposting, there's plenty of idea exchange over there, sometimes... I know am being too optimistic, but sometimes its just a real civil board

Zizek did kind of fuck himself with the KR comments but the people who just parrot the analytic party line that there's no real substance to what Zizek has to say, usually without knowing the first thing about him or his work are still being dogmatic idiots.

>>3960975
Ok. Thanks for sharing. Come back when you actually have a idea of how to change anything.

>>3958089
>the absolute anything

clarion call of the charlatan

The only book I've read by Zizek, the one about Lacan, was actually incredibly easy to read.

>>3960977
Oh, please. If anyone is buying into dogma, it's the fans of Zizek who try and defend his empty posturing. The 'first thing about him or his work' are the problem! They don't have any substantial meaning to them! They're vague affirmations of "ideology" at work, with a bit of Lacanian/Hegelian spice thrown on top for good measure.

>>3960991
You're doing exactly what Chomsky is criticizing: citing nothing and giving no examples.

>>3960999
"... Žižek identifies two instances of the Real; the abject Real, which cannot be symbolized, and the symbolic Real, a set of signifiers that can never be properly integrated into the horizon of sense of a subject. The truth is revealed in the process of transiting the contradictions; or the real is a "minimal difference", the gap between the infinite judgement of a reductionist materialism and experience as lived."


What the flying fuck is that supposed to mean? Do tell.

>>3960635
Well things are like this in his theory. For Zizek in regard to political action he has two points, or better two dangers that he warns us againt:

1) Is the one that I mentioned. In regard to the event one is never ready. The event is what is previously unforeseeable but after it happens it sheds light retroactively on history and you say: "ah-ha! see the conditions was always there!" That's why you are never ready for the event and you have to make a leap of faith. The danger is that you become undecisive and that you spend your time doubting.

2) The other is what he calls passage a l'act. That is that when cornered you panic and then you do something at random hoping that the worse won't happen. Is the conservative "change everything so that nothing will change".

An example of the first case is the writer who is never ready to start writing because he just has to do a little bit of research. The second case is the person starting to do compulsive shopping on amazon to avoid thinking of their problems.

For Zizek these are both two strategies that the political subject, as the every day subject, puts in action to avoid the real.

>>3961013
Lacan talks about two reals.
The Real is the unknowable thing in itself.
The Symbolic Real is that which in a symbolic order cannot be said or made sense of (the taboo). For example in christianity it's the fact that god is dead/has abandoned us.

Zizek has a non-representationalist theory of truth. Truth is not when words fit the object, but is the fact that our conceptualization of the world can be wrong. So we find truth by conceptualizing the wrong and discovering that we are wrong by a continuous getting ever more right.

The last part deals with the reinterpretation of Zizek of the kantian thing in itself. For Zizek the thing in itself is not some magical object that exists who know where, but is the fact that we cannot put together our scientific view of the world with our lived view of the world.
The "I know that every thing I experience is just neuron firing" with the "yet the best way to talk about my mental states is in terms of beliefs and emotions". Or "I believe in the b-theory of time" and "yet I cannot but experience time as in the a-theroy". This gap, zizek thinks, is where the thing in itself is.

>>3961113
*conceptualizing the world

I wasn't aware of Chomsky's work on Indochinese atrocities. I'd have to read it more thoroughly to comment intelligently, but my surface-level reading leads me to think that the two thinkers actually have very much in common.
Zizek admittedly looks like he's lashing out at straw dogs and imagined (or, yes, fantastically constructed) foes here, but it could be because he and Noam are more alike than he would prefer to admit.
I expect either a continued, contentious battle, or an incredibly productive public make-up -- the least likely of the two, but one which would be highly fruitful.
Good shit OP.

le epic filosofee battle!

>>3960991
Thank you for demonstrating my point by parroting the same dogmatic party line I was trying to be critical of.

>>3961113
Let me correct myself for completeness sake before someone else does.
Lacan talks about three reals in total (after seminar VII). There is also the imaginary real which I have omitted because it was not in the sentence reported.

Bump

>>3961113
>thing in itself

Oh yes, Lacan is just crap.

>>3961845
Wow, rousing, 10/10, would read again

>>3961120
le epic cynical defense mechanisms!

>>3961845
he's just recycled nietzsche and kant applied to linguistics and psychology with lots of extra bullshit slathered over it

>>3958224
>>3958217
Ha no. In debates Chompsky often says "you can easily find these facts out for yourself..." regarding his sources. He has been attacked for this by more than one debater because they say he knows people won't look this stuff up and take him at his word.
He does not have some superhuman ability to memorize factual sources.

I actually enjoy the works of both Chomsky and Zizek before someone accuses me of 'tryhard fanboyism defence.'

lol chomsky is such an intellectually dishonest prig. he did the same thing to skinner yet operant conditioning has gotten me through more relationships than i can count.

>>3961890

>The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdata"

>>3961884
Nietzsche and Kant?
You probably did not read Lacan.

His influences are Kojeve (hence hegel) and Freud.
He has readings of Kant but the influence is minimal.

Thank god he is the charlatan and not yourself, right?

>>3961895
that was actually pretty clever, my little rat.

>>3961899
thing-in-itself is kant
god is dead is nietzsche

>>3961907
oh dear ....

>>3961910
say something

>>3961907
Sure got high school around here

I think Chomsky is wrong in this debate. You see, without the philosophy, without the dreamers, we would be going nowhere, if all we relied upon was what we could materially see we would be still living in caves. Without Marx we would not have the labour movement and Communism without Cleisthenes we would not have democracy and so on and so on.

Take a movie like the Avengers, without a philosophical approach, we would look at reality just as we look at The Avengers, just looking at things constantly moving forward and constantly in motion, but not understanding a single thing about why it works the way it does, we would look at the world as observers, just watching things play out.

Chomsky is like much of the modern left are just stupid activists that offer no solution but just like to whine about things. They see suffering, they see contradiction and they say "well we could do something, but the USSR so we won't" and they go on like this. For as long as I have been alive they have offered no solutions, when they have the chance to finally mobilize and they do at Wall Street they offer no solutions and so on and so on and this continues this trend, time will go on and no solutions will come forth because no one does a material analysis of the system and pinpoints the contradictions that arise from it. No, they go out and complain and go home and feel good about themselves while still buying into the system, but oh now they have actually achieved something through capitalism with a human face, now they have bought a starbucks coffee, a small African child gets a free starbucks coffee.

Without philosophical thinkers like Zizek, the left would be more dead than it ever was. In fact, it largely Zizek alone who is keeping the left alive.

I think Zizek is wrong in this debate. You see, without the philosophy, without the dreamers, we would be going nowhere, if all we relied upon was what we could materially see we would be still living in caves. Without Marx we would not have the labour movement and Communism without Cleisthenes we would not have democracy and so on and so on.

Take a movie like the Avengers, without a philosophical approach, we would look at reality just as we look at The Avengers, just looking at things constantly moving forward and constantly in motion, but not understanding a single thing about why it works the way it does, we would look at the world as observers, just watching things play out.

Zizek is like much of the modern left are just stupid activists that offer no solution but just like to whine about things. They see suffering, they see contradiction and they say "well we could do something, but the USSR so we won't" and they go on like this. For as long as I have been alive they have offered no solutions, when they have the chance to finally mobilize and they do at Wall Street they offer no solutions and so on and so on and this continues this trend, time will go on and no solutions will come forth because no one does a material analysis of the system and pinpoints the contradictions that arise from it. No, they go out and complain and go home and feel good about themselves while still buying into the system, but oh now they have actually achieved something through capitalism with a human face, now they have bought a starbucks coffee, a small African child gets a free starbucks coffee.

Without philosophical thinkers like Chomsky, the left would be more dead than it ever was. In fact, it largely Chomsky alone who is keeping the left alive.

>>3960455
Woah these are some seriously groundbreaking ideas. So much substance and value right here guys.

>>3958061
I chuckled.

>>3961928

I was answering to the charge that he does not express ideas, not on the merit of those ideas which is another discussion.
Really it's like the broken pot:

>hey guys zizek is a charlatan he does not say anything.
>yeah maybe he is saying something but his ideas are not ground breaking
>okay maybe he is original but they have no practical value
>just stop reading zizek guys.

It's incredible the dishonesty that constantly goes on from the defenders if honesty.

>>3961964
>those ideas aren't original or even correct
>well not those ideas!

>>3961985
People were saying that he has no ideas and that he is incomprehensible. Don't be dishonest by changing the topic.

>>3961964

Go back and read the original post. I wrote: "[...]for the most part empty charlatanism with some capitalist critique and social criticism thrown into it."

>>3961994

No, you're the one being dishonest if anyone is. His "ideas" and criticisms of capitalism are because of his communism and shared by many others. His psychoanalytic insights are often humorous and might even be interesting but for the most part they are kind of ridiculous. Beyond these things (which are either a) nothing new or b) silly but sometimes humorous insights) Zizek isn't all that of a "philosopher."

>>3962001
>>3962001
1) Chomsky said his ideas can't be explained in simple terms. I did that.
2) the ideas I reported are neither anticapitalist nor social critique. They deal with theory of action. So they have nothing to do with your original post.
3) I believe now it's your turn to bring some substance. You say he is a charlatan and I threw in some meat (there is even the more complex post on retroactivity and passage a l'act). Now it's your turn to bring out some serious criticism. Because if you keep repeating yourself I'll just think that you are the one without any ideas.

Zizek does cocaine.

Do not try to tell me otherwise.

Not that there's anything wrong with that

>>3962018
>Chomsky said his ideas can't be explained in simple terms. I did that.
but they're not zizek's ideas.

>They deal with theory of action.
>the conditions for action are never evident before the action. It's the simple idea that successful people are the one that act before they think they are ready, because if you reflect too much you think you are never ready.
please. this is a corny idea swiped from any of many bad self-help books

>>3961917
>Chomsky is like much of the modern left are just stupid activists that offer no solution but just like to whine about things. They see suffering, they see contradiction and they say "well we could do something, but the USSR so we won't" and they go on like this
Wow, what a whiny little bitch you are. If you'd actually knew anything about Chomsky's work you'd also knew that he has many proposals. +'they' have to do the work, how about you do something? fucking disgusting.

>Take a movie like the Avengers, without a philosophical approach, we would look at reality just as we look at The Avengers, just looking at things constantly moving forward and constantly in motion, but not understanding a single thing about why it works the way it does, we would look at the world as observers, just watching things play out.
This is so stupid and naive and wrong, won't even bother with it.

>no one does a material analysis of the system and pinpoints the contradictions that arise from it
Except that is exactly what chomsky devoted a big part of his life to, an instiutional analysis of the american political/capitalist system in particular and the west in general. He's just way above Zizek in that regard. Now please go back to your youtube sessions with zizek.

>>3962023
His application to the political subject is a zizekian thing. Lacan never did that.

Please point me out any intellectual besides Lacan that expounded retroactivity if you criticize it's originality.

Also don't confound the simplicity of the example. The important part is that the event reconceptualizes the past.

But I doubt you have any knowledge on the subject seeing how vague is your criticism.

>>3962018
>1) Chomsky said his ideas can't be explained in simple terms. I did that.
totally false. Chomskys critique of postmodern thinkers is that their ideas are either so simple minded that you can explain them in the most simple terms or are totally incoherent/incomprehensible. And not one of them reaches the level of 'theory' in any meaningful way in the sense of the sciences.

>>3962045
Then it's Chomsky's problem to expect from philosophy a scientific theory. Not even Carnap does that.
Also it's very easy to criticize like that: I understand it? Too simple. I don't understand it? Too complex.

The fact is that all he is saying is "I don't like it".

>>3962045
>Chomskys critique of postmodern thinkers is that their ideas are either so simple minded that you can explain them in the most simple terms or are totally incoherent/incomprehensible
Chomsky is trully the hero /pol/ deserves, but not the one it needs
He is our silent guardian, a black knight

>>3962054

>There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out.

>>3962041
>Please point me out any intellectual besides Lacan that expounded retroactivity if you criticize it's originality.
freud

>But I doubt you have any knowledge on the subject seeing how vague is your criticism.
i don't know how much more direct i can get than >>3962023
the idea relating to "theory of action" you expressed in >>3961964 is not zizek's. it is not original to him (zizek), nor is it correct, but that's beside the point.

>>3962054
>in the sense of the sciences

>>3962059
>Freud
where? I know Freud quite well and the traumatic event does not work like that. Freud at best talks of a subsequent reinterpretation of a traumatic event. We get the event, we learn about sexuality, we reinterpret the event using the sexual concepts.

Also that theory of action if it is not original to zizek please tell me where else I can find it. It's psychoanalytically inspired but it's not in Freud, not in Reich's application is psychoanalysis to politics.

Again you can find it at best in Lacan, but it has no political application there. Nor Lacan analyzes it's consequences for the acting subject.

>>3962061
Not even Carnap can live up to that standard.

>>3962054

No, he's saying this: >>3962058

Basically, if your PHILOSOPHICAL "idea" or "theory" is as hard to understand as quantum theory, then it's most likely just bullshit.

> implying a confusing obscurantist is what the proles need

Chomsky gets my vote because he tries to communicate beyond the ivory tower academic clique.

>>3962079

Also this is important. As a communist you would think Zizek would appeal to people outside of academia. He *really* doesn't. As you say, he's much more of a posturing obscurantist.

>>3962077
It's not as hard as quantum theory. Is not that hard at all. At best they are as hard as Kant gets.
Also I can easily explain Lacan, Derrida and Foucault. Ask a question and you will see.

>>3962092
>Also I can easily explain Lacan, Derrida and Foucault


>friends of Chomsky can't explain it adequately

>but rest assured, I can!

>>3962077
Quantum is e-z though.

It's just maths!

>>3962079
proles may be idiots, but treating them like idiots when things are actually quite complex is not going to wake them from their slumber of idiocy; it replaces it with sleep-walking

>>3962096
Well no need to be aggressive. If you doubt me you can test me. Ask me a question and I'll answer. So we can see.

>>3962092

Foucault.

In what way is the the body the site of inscription of knowledge/power?

>>3962111

Send a mail to Chomsky and explain stuff to him.

>>3962109
cheers mate, always insightful stuff

>>3962114
Optimization (efficiency) and normalization are two ways that power operates and affirms itself.
You are expected to work ten hours a day at a desk and if you want to be efficient you have to eat healthy and go to the gym. If you don't have a defined six pack you are a loser. Naturally eating healthy and going to the gym requires money (for which you have to work) and time (leaving you less independent, less free) so in away you are more under control.
So Foucault thought that power does not controls us through institutions and morality but also through our bodies and through the knowledge of our bodies that it gives us. And he has studied how some of this bodily practices historically have supported societies or institutions.

That's what he means by that. Again you are free to disagree. I'm just explaining what he thought in simple terms.

>>3962138
is that the same as the micro-physics of power

>>3962054
Then it is great for us that Chomsky doesn't have such expectations. It is a very peculiar thing in the humanities that if you're not able to meet a certain scientific standard you can say "oh how are we able to reach that? that's impossible" and then to proceed to behave as if you've met said standard and decorate yourself with all the prestigious words from the natural sciences.

>>3962151

physics envy

>>3962142
Micro-physics of power is the idea that power is not just active in the relationship between subject and leader but in every relationship: husband-wife, teacher-student, football team captain-player, doctor-patient.

>>3962151
The problem is that the humanities and the sciences do two different things and respond to different problems.

When you try to understand the Roman Empire you can't develop a reproducible theory because the Roman Empire can't be reproduced.

When you discuss a philosophical theory you cannot ask for empirical evidence because you are doing philosophy exactly because there cannot be empirical evidence.

Seriously guys: epistemology 101

Chomsky writes: "Of much greater general interest is the fact that to this day, those who are completely in the grip of western propaganda adhere religiously to the prescribed doctrine: a show of great indignation about the KR years and our accurate review of the information available, along with streams of falsification; and silence about the vastly more significant cases of ET and Cambodia under US attack, before and after the KR years. Žižek’s comments are a perfect illustration."


Such accusations from a man who religiously accepted, possibly still accepts, all Western crap written about the history of the Soviet Union.

This here is hypocritical shit slinging.

>>3962199
>>Such accusations from a man who religiously accepted, possibly still accepts, all Western crap written about the history of the Soviet Union.
>implying much of it isn't true, and there isn't a semblance of stuff that is critical to the USSR that is actually on spot, aside from muh 60 million dead tier of shit that nobody believes already
How does taking a cock up your ass perpetually feel like?

You think Kosygin was a faggot too, don't you?

>>3962174
>When you discuss a philosophical theory you cannot ask for empirical evidence because you are doing philosophy exactly because there cannot be empirical evidence.
What the hell am I reading?

A lot of philosophical theories employ empirical evidence. Hence when discussing one, one might ask for a source for the premise or the proposition 'x'

>>3962174
Please continue to state the obvious and fail to understand what is written.

>>3962215

This wasn't about Stalin and other things in the past. And no I don't think Kosygin is a faggot. This is Chomsky being a blinded ideologue because

>muh anarchism.


He wrote: "the collapse of the soviet union is a small victory for socialism, it eliminated one of the major barriers to it."

Can you be anymore deluded.

>>3962138

Sounds exactly like biopolitics. Why could he not just stick with one term for the concept.

Reminds me of the saying.

An analytic philosopher accuses a continentalist of being insufficiently clear. A continentalist accuses a analytic philosopher of being insufficiently.

>>3962241
Are you nuts? Chomsky is far from being an 'analytic philosopher'.

>>3962223
On reddit maybe.
Philosophical theories are always underdetermined by empirical evidence.
Please tell me what empirical evidence could possibly decide utilitarism vs deontology.

>>3962247

what are you talking about. All I did was accuse Foucault of being insufficently clear since knowledge/power and biopolitics seem semantically equivalent. I never said Chomsky was an analytic philosopher

>>3962253

If we suddenly found out what it is like to be a bat in a reductive manner then ultitarianism would be right. Utilitarianism is an empiricist system of ethics. If mind is found to be irreducible to body then deontology is right since it presupposes a priori knowledge as possible.

>>3962253

also empiricism itself is a philosophical theory...

>>3962253
Not sure if trolling, obstinate, or new to Philosophy.

You seem to think that Philosophy encompasses 'Ethics' and 'Ethics' only, which is wrong.

Philosophers of Cognitive Science, for one, rely on the newest findings of Cognitive Science.

Philosophers of Science, rely on the newest findings of Natural Science(s).

Do I need to go on?

>>3962240
BUT IT IS, COMMUNISM WAS A BARRIER FOR SOCIETY TO BECOME UNBRIDLEDLY LIBERTARIAN OVER TIME WHY CAN'T YOU SEE?

The economic left had to fail eventually so that the right could disbalance, get forced to concede at some level and begin caring about social issues again

>>3962260
Sorry, something "mixed up"; didn't see your previous posts.

We'd be living in the world of Watchmen if the USSR had not fallen apart

>>3962276
Empirical evidence =/= Empiricism

>>3962279

Phil of science relies on more than just natural science... we also look at formal, life, and special sciences

>>3962290

thinking emprical evidence is epistemic is a philosophical standpoint in the empiricist camp

>>3962241
Because he didn't invent biopolitics as term yet. Biopolitics is a late term (mid 70s) and comprises that but more.

For Foucault biopolitics is the shift of attention of power from the administration of that (who shall we execute today?) to the administration of life (how can we keep our subjects alive?).

It comprises the education of the body through medical practice but also: population control, immigration control, economic distribution of goods, criminal punishment, sanitation, the policing of the territory and stuff like that.

But again when he talks of how power controls us through the body he was talking about a process for which he didn't have the world biopolitics yet.

>>3962287

You don't think that the contemporary US is equal or worse than the US of the watchmen? Are you dumb, blind, or both?

>>3962292
>Phil of science relies on more than just natural science..
Well, I'm glad you now agree that Philosophy employs empirical evidence.

>we also look at formal, life, and special sciences
What? Are you dizzy?

>>3962295
They are connected -- sure -- but they are two, different concepts

>>3962301
Unlike on Watchmen we are reaching a point where knowing the truth may actually do all the difference

>>3962279
If a problem in physics can be decided through empirical data than that is a physics problem and not a philosophy of physics problem.

You have to be up to date with the research because it reduces the possibility but no problem of the philosophy of mind can be decided empirically. Philosophy is an interpretation of the empirical data are best.

That's what underdetermined means.

>>3962307

dizzy? I'm a phd candidate doing phil of bio... natural sciences are ONLY physics and chem.

are you just spouting verbal diahrrea about something you know nothing about?

>>3962311
>Unlike on Watchmen we are reaching a point where knowing the truth may actually do all the difference
see, here's where I think Zizek is actually quite pertinent. The point is not that we do not know the truth - everybody knows that the majority of the earth lives in miserable conditions, that global warming is happening, etc. etc. The point is not that we have to know about horrible things. The point is that we know it, that is we can recount it, and act as if we did not. It is this disjunction that Zizek names ideology, and it is to this that we are in general blind.

>>3962307
By
>They are connected -- sure -- but they are two, different concepts
I meant that not only they are conceptually different, but that >>3962276 's post was besides the point.

>>3962280

That's some impossibilist wank m8.

>>3962320
>I'm a phd candidate doing phil of bio...
$500k starting rightee?? xDDDDD

>natural sciences are ONLY physics and chem.
Woah, you went full retard here.

Get the fuck out.

>>3962321
Well, the world is waking up in front of us, I really think we should teach them how to work it out once they are entirely awakened

>>3962324
We are riding on top of a bullet train towards the future and there isn't anything me, you or the trillion alien/jew/bureaucrat/[put your favourite boogeymen here] armada can do about it

>>3962276
In fact there is no experiment you can do to prove that empiricism is correct. That's why people still argue for and against it.

>>3962327

I wonder why I keep coming here? I will not be disparaged by community college undergrads on summer break. I could link you to my published works or my people in x department webpage but I wont.

Your obstenancy and psuedointellectual ramblings will prevent not just me but other professionals in the field from EVER interacting in this forum.

On the offchance that you are not in community college but actualy are an undergrad at the ELITE university I attend, I hope you are in my phil of science class in the fall. I would fail your miserable ass hard.

>>3962337
most people are functional empiricists though: replicability is all they care about. If everytime you whistle dixie a dollar comes out of your navel, "why" is going to be a question that occurs to you occasionally, but you'll note and make use of the function, and validate it practically.

>>3962350
You actually said only physics and chemistry are natural sciences, though. Neglecting the fact that you have to have the equivalent coursework for a chemistry degree to study biology at the graduate level most places. And also that an elite university for agricultural science, say, isn't going to be elite for french classicism necessarily.

>>3962350
Wow, what an irrefutable argument!

Anyway, you lost *the* argument a few posts back; you might as well consider reading some actual philosophy and not merely boast around as IF you had read any.

And if your fantasy of "doing" Philosophy of Biology becomes actualized I sincerely feel sorry for the field.

Take care of that butthurt, though

>>3962350
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little bitch?

>>3962370

chem and bio do not have equivalent courses


bio majors usually only take orgo and easy biochem. chem majors take physical, analytic, and harder biochem usually

>>3962372

I lost no argument. I merely express frustration at your (and others on lit in general) postering as if you know anything about philosophy of science. Christ, you denied that philosophers of science the ability to specialize in life, formal, or special science. You lost the argument and forgive me for leaving geology out of the natural sciences.

>>3962350
>>3962381
Wow, you sure showed me! Simply irrefutable. I'm astonished.

First of all, the "pseudointellectual' mumbojumbo of yours is a sheer projection. You have ZERO arguments.

Second of all, you lost *the* argument a few posts ago; *now* either, (a) shut the fuck up, (b) get the fuck out, or (c), consider *actually* reading philosophy, rather than boasting around as IF you have read any.

Thirdly, if your fantasy of doing Philosophy of Biology eventually becomes actualized, I'm sincerely sorry for the field. It's remarkable that such blockheads as you get to their PhDs.

Yet another happy occurrence of "some x with a higher education in y ~□ that x is not a complete fucking idiot" proves to be correct.

Take care of that butthurt, though

>>3962381
>I lost no argument.
>You lost the argument
I can't believe you're talking out of your ass and not realizing it.

Leave this board.

>>3962372
>>3962376

I get very butthurt when uneducated children pretend to know my field and try to lecture me on material that I teach. You would be too.

>>3962350
can I just say that I might not accord with your research program, but the drubbing you're getting is reprehensible and your outrage is justified. I hope your studies are productive and engaging. Phil. of bio. is fascinating

>>3962360
I agree. Most people are naive realists for what it matters.

>>3962384

what arugement was that? I am merely stating that philosophers of science work in more areas of science than the natural sciences. This is an elementary point. If you think otherwise you have read NO philosophy of science. Maybe you should try "actually" reading it sometime.

Also fuck you.

>>3962393
So far you have contributed 0 arguments and merely used cheap ad hominems. You are embarrassing not only yourself but your field as well.

Whoever thinks this guy is "legit" may be thrown in the same idiot-boat with him.

>>3962395

Thanks. You seem to be one of the better trips.

>>3962414

QED

http://pos.sagepub.com/

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little bitch?

>>3962424

Well, you're dead kiddo.

>>3962422
Sorry? How is an irrelevant internet address is supposed to magically erase your earlier hilarity?

Please get a trip so I can shitlist you.

>>3962440

My argument was that philosophers of science can work in other areas than the natural sciences. That is all I was talking about. I showed a conventionalist proof that they do through linking to a journal of phil of social sciences.

I didn't think I had to show a proof about something that was inuitively true. Seems I did (and you still didn't get it).

>>3962450
>My argument was that philosophers of science can work in other areas than the natural sciences.
And you made a fuss about *that*? I mean, fine; if you're this pedantic.

Yes, a philosopher of science may also work in a shopping mall. I'm not denying that. But generally they work within natural sciences.

>>3962478

Have you ever been to a phil of science conference?

The majority of people in the field do not specialize in a philosophy of the natural sciences.

Physics envy died with the vienna circle.

>>3962537
>Physics envy died with the vienna circle

It's like watching mommy and daddy fight.

>>3962901
Am gunning for daddy Chomsky, he's got a dick

chomsky a shit, he'll get Zizrekt soon

>>3962910
>implying there is any escape to the Chomsky non-conformist neoliberal rape train

>implying non-conformist is any different from conformist and not just a way of saying 'my tastes = god tier; your tastes = shit'

>>3962706
Not that guy but physics envy is felt only in the anglophone world.

Anyway anyone else who believes that continental philosophy cannot be explained in simple terms?

>>3963017
>only continental

can someone just give me a quick overview of what is going on between them?
I don't even know much about Zizek I tried looking him up and I'm not sure if he's a stallinist or one of those "left Libertarians"

>>3963049
Just the fact that he ascribes himself as Hegelian should tell you everything that is needed to say

Its the same shit as everyone else, but painted all over with 'critique'

>>3963096
Lol
wtf are you talking about?

>>3963105
It means that his differences with Chomsky are merely superficial, they both suck neoliberal dick but call it with a different name, they also both say its yucky but still eat it gladly

Didn't take me 5 minutes to figure it out

>>3963121
>neoliberal
A swede told me that's what Ron Paul is?

What's hilarious is how they call all of this 'left' and 'new left'

Stupid worms won't know what hit them when they see its all the same shit under a different costume

>>3963127
EXACTLY, except Ron Paul is the right wing flavoured one

Its all the same, make no mistake, just a different costume

>>3963132
So Chomsky and Zizek are mouthpieces for rich guys to pander to plebs about muh freedoms while they rake in cash, get famous and defy their own professed philosophies over and over again? :D

>/lit/ one year ago:
>Chomsky is a smart guy, but he's still full of shit. Zizek is the same way.
>/lit/ now:
>Zizek is full of shit. Based Chomsky!

>>3963139
Yes

>>3963144
I actually rest my case on Zizek being shit, he is great too, he is just getting his ass stomped by Chomsky for no reason other than him asking for it

>>3963144
>/lit/ one year from now
>Chomsky and Zizek are infidels, hang them for speaking against Allah

This is literally wrestling for the intellectual

*intellectuals

Its literally a setup fight for no other purpose than to entertain those who want to watch people duke it out... intellectually

>>3963149
Crusade happens when? We are way overdue one

>>3963149
Okay /lit/ you may be full of tryhards from /mu/ /tv/ and /pol/ these days but at least you can still make me laugh.

>>3963161
>crusade
lol even when those were real you fags failed :D
>lel let's get our asses handed to us by Saladin, then we can wreck the byzantine christians and call it a crusade for christ despite it just being our retarded selves holding Greek's ass open for Turks to fuck :DDD
If you christians tried doing that again, it'd be the end of you for good.

>>3963175
>try hard
>try

>>3963181
>we were just pretending to be retarded in the name of christ!

>>3963175
You have an infantile sense of humor then

>>3963175
>>3963186
>>3963190
what if /lit/ got really hard into Islam and we made this the most hardcore Islamist site on the english-speaking internet just to troll the fgts on /pol/?
wud b laff? y/n?

>>3963198
>implying you aren't already without reading a single page of the quran
>implying reading it wouldn't get the NSA all over your asses for stupid reasons
>implying /pol/ gives a shit about it if you've read what hitler had to say about arabs and those who didn't agree would just accept it because childfucking and anti-homo

But hey, what could possibly go wrong? Its also intensely anti-feminist as well, really, how could you possibly go more /pol/ than all of that?

Forget I said all of that, it fits so much with the ideology of /pol/ that its disgusting, its almost every last damn anti-modernist credo

>>3963207
>without reading a single page of the quran
You're wrong on this, and joke's on you I'm not American. NSA can't touch me

>islam is a conspiracy to get everyone anti-modernist branded as a terrorist and shot, I must hurry and go tell /pol/

>>3963223
>implying you don't have an NSA chip inside your rectum with a cyanide capsule and an explosive device that transforms into a gigantic spiked dildo right before it pops the cyanide

>>3963211
>>3963217
r u a grill?

>>3963229
No, but I am a grille, pic related, its me

>>3963236
waifu tier <3

>>3963223
Umm...You do know that most of the NSA's operations are overseas? Contrary to what the media tells you, there's very little domestic spying on the NSA's part.

>>3963442
>there's very little domestic spying on the NSA's part.
l m a o

>>3963442

>You do know that most of the NSA's operations are overseas?

Sure but only because there are more people living outside the US than inside the US. Not because the NSA isn´t spying on Americans.

If they want information on an American they can just go to google and facebook and ask for all their information on you and suddenly they probably know more about you than your parents.

>>3963152

No it is not, this is literary wrestling-

Is Chomsky even philosophy?

I would consider him far more in the realm of political science and actual journalism.

>>3963121
>>3963132
so edgy. what an intellect.

>>3963675
He is a philosopher by training afaik.

>>3963852
He was a linguist by training, he became famous for his (controversial) contributions to that field, and later became notable for his political leanings.

>>3958065

But Hegel was the zenith of charlatanism. He'd be very pleased with all these gyrations going on.

>>3963888
so what you're saying is that Hegel would have liked titty bars if he was alive today

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON.
ANON.
HELP.

>>3963879
He repeatedly said that he has no formal training in lingustics and he did study philosophy.

>(1) As an undergraduate at Pennsylvania, Chomsky studied philosophy and mathematics.

>>3963914
addition: even though I know he worked under the current linguists of the time, so maybe what he means by that is in lingustics currently conceived he had no training (which is understandable because he basically created it)

>>3963907
A linguist who fails at history is bum flapping an impenetrable Slovene troll.

Neither is a member of the relevant union. Both are irrelevant to class struggle.

Both pander to bourgeois "leftists".

Both are relevant in their specific sub-disciplines for their real scholarly contributions.

Both are ego tripping cuntfaces.

>>3963931
SOUDSN ANONYNIG THANKS ANON.

Are they *still* going at it?

Million dollar opportunity.

I can't draw bodies, someone draw them some bodies

>>3963931
avakian pls

>>3963952
Viagra, man, doubled edged sword of the modern era.

>>3963931
>A linguist who fails at history
How does he fail at history, or is /lit/ just shit stirring as usual?

>>3963931
>Neither is a member of the relevant union. Both are irrelevant to class struggle.

>Both pander to bourgeois "leftists".

I don't think you quite realise how big of an impact Chomsky has had on people, especially in Latin-America. In any case, you're fucking retarded and you're talking out of your ass.

>>3960935

i've noticed this too. left and right are merging into one global scheme, but it's being CALLED "leftist" or "liberal".

think long and hard about why that might be.

>>3964248

Read _at war with asia_'s bibliography and end notes.

>>3964266
Because Latin American leninists are so central to proletarian auto gestation. Why don't you suckhole a great leader? The people of Chiapas have done more for the revolution than Chomsky ever could.

>>3958051
>implying i care what these old retards have to say if it has nothing to do with my selfish interests
>implying this isn't just cult of personality bullshit

>>3964344
>Latin American leninists

Confirmed for retarded. Chomsky's work, among man other intellectuals like him (Howard Zinn, Said, etc., as well as people like Daniel Ellsberg) have done enormous good to exposing imperialist evils and harm. They are all invaluable additions to the left and you are seriously fucking retarded if you think that all they do is pander to the "bourgeoisie" and so on. The only reason Noam isn't out on the streets marching with everyone else is beacuse he's close to fucking 90 years old. And he STILL travels around Latin America to meet people and lecture for them, at 84! To say that he just panders to the bourgeoisie is remarkably ignorant and unbelievably stupid.

>>3959573
4chan is natural habitat for tinfoil rightwingers and shitposters. A tiny bit of spillover fro /pol/ is enough to turn whole board into monkey orgy.

>>3964360
Your examples are pretty specious. You might as well suggest that Regulation or Wallenstein have fought imperialism. By accepting ideology you are inherently anti worker and anti praxis.

Chomsky is a degenerate rootless cosmopolitan and a hypocrite.
He claims that he is an anarcho syndicalist and that he doesn't like the federal government yet every fucking thing he says you should do goes against his so called political beliefs.
>Guns are bad
>Federal health care is good
>Muh civil rights

>>3964563

Have you read a single work by Chomsky?

Man, these threads always gets out the pseudointellectuals on /lit/. "One of the most quoted scholars of our time is a rootless cosmopolitan and a hypocrite."

Makes you wonder why all of you aren't 20-ish professors, seeing as simple it is for you to disregard important and influential intellectuals you disagree with.

>>3964612
don't bother responding, these are cultists or trolls. nothing more to it.

>2 retards discussing potato outside of their fields knowledge
>/lit/ creams itself

>>3964745
What ? I'm a social democrat (idealistically anarcho syndicalist) and Chomsky is a blatant fraud when it comes to politics.

>>3964612
I have read multiple works by Chomsky. "Manufacturing Consent" was pretty enlightening when I was 16 but after that I realized he just likes fingering leftist dictators' assholes.

>>3960934
>Chomsky considers himself an anarchist
>tripfag says he is a convervative

Well, since the tripfriend said it, it must be true.

>>3964766
>>3964777
Could you at least recount a specific example (even if it's from memory) and give a little more detail on why Chomsky is shit/overrated/etc

I can understand more of the criticisms aimed against Zizek in regards to the quality of his work. Chomsky I have a harder time seeing it (except criticisms aimed at Chomsky as a person sometimes).

Otherwise: >>3964612

>>3961917
Chomsky had to dedicate a lot of his time in finding the problems in capitalism and american imperialism because they are so many and his compatriots are manipulated every day of their lives. So when someone just keep at it, keep bashing it and dedicate so much of his time in trying to show you something it just has to start working at some point. Someone will give a timid and frighten shout saying "hey, this guy keeps saying these things and they keep happening, is he for real?".
As for the "what about the action" part in his books that I have read he dedicates some pages in saying what needs to be done, but if you really want to see more into his views I believe you need to go to youtube and find his views on Anarch-Syndicalism. I do believe with you that he should say more about what needs to be done, but we can't just keep waiting for him to show us the way. Zizek himself said that "the left right now is waiting for someone to come and tell them what to do. We need to think" and so on and so on.

Chomsdick dosn't even think 9/11 was a "conspiracy"

>>3965531
...What? Even if Bin Laden did it and it played out the exact way the government says it did, Bin Laden -conspired- with his people to do it.

Conspiracy literally just means a group of people planning together to do something that someone else would consider bad.

>putting a non mainstream marxist political philosopher against one of the most systematically clear men alive.

>>3965492
>Zizek himself said that "the left right now is waiting for someone to come and tell them what to do. We need to think" and so on and so on.

Anyone in /lit/ up to the challenge?

>>3958051
Who gives a fuck what a old cripplecock and a hairy fat fuck think anyway?

Sage

>>3965740
What challenge?

>>3965800
Ah, sorry. The response is a bit out of context. Didn't see the last sentence.

When Zizek says: We need to think, what he's referring too is feasable economic alternatives which are not based on past models (from what I can understand). The left tends to only offer critique on things without giving actual solutions (or at least very vague solutions).

>>3965740
Stop the chase for equality of outcome. It's just an endless river of tears for you because it will never ever happen. But maybe that's the point. The victimology. Votes and Relevance.

>>3965750
sage is not le downboat XD

>>3965833
>We need to think, what he's referring too is feasable economic alternatives which are not based on past models (from what I can understand). The left tends to only offer critique on things without giving actual solutions (or at least very vague solutions).

there's that; there's also the sort of brute, jejune actionism ("something must be done! stop theorizing" which always ends up in inert, purely local action which is still theory-laden but blindly and cooptedly so) that the left, or part of the left, hasn't overcome since 68.

Recognize fatcat CEOs (those of big conglomerates), bankers and other scum as enemies of humanity, execute them and go from there.
It's not that difficult.

>muh enemies of the people
Stupid jacobin worms, stop slowing change, its inevitable

>>3965950
True. And here's were the problem generally lies. Nothing productive will really come to be because of this and it seems more likely that the new economic/political system that will come to be would be some sort of neo-feudalism (a very original opinion on /lit/ I assume?)

>>3964563
>Chomsky …
>claims that he is an anarcho syndicalist

And yet he was incapable of fulfilling the simple and basic criteria of IWW membership, which is to pay dues and turn up to about one in ten meetings a year.

Chomsky is a dilletante, who incapable of fighting where he is at, masquerades as a great white saviour for capitalist nationalism outside of the imperial centre.

>>3964612
>One of the most quoted scholars of our time is a rootless cosmopolitan and a hypocrite.
You don't really know what cosmopolitanism is do you? Also, an argument from popularity isn't a counter to a claim of hypocrisy.

>>3965487
At war with Asia's bibliography. In fact any of Chomsky's "political" works. Chomsky lacks the field specific training to have a meaningful opinion as a sociologist, anthropologist, historian or broadly as a social scientist. Yet he keeps pounding out shit despite lacking field specialisation adequate to form a sustainable opinion.

>>3965740
>>Zizek himself said that "the left right now is waiting for someone to come and tell them what to do. We need to think" and so on and so on.
>Anyone in /lit/ up to the challenge?

I take it that you've read no Italian workerism or autonomism at all, if you believe Zizek to be correct. The uncovering of the terms and modes of resistance and liberation fit to a period occur by the class itself in struggle. By our hand alone or by none.

>>3965950
The lessons of 1968 are that if the workers are going to deStalinise Czechoslovakia and manifest the first blossom of socialism in Czechoslovak history in their workers councils, you had better be willing to take on the entire Western area of the Soviet Army.

Also some impotent shit happened in Belgium or Algiers or some other irrelevant Francophone country.

>>3965459
chomsky has stated numerous times that he considers himself a "conservative"

lurk more retard

>>3966017
>Chomsky lacks the field specific training to have a meaningful opinion as a sociologist, anthropologist, historian or broadly as a social scientist.

Also, isn't he a "linguist" who only knows two languages?

>>3966025

Chomsky made his mark with his logic/syntax groundwork that paved the way for higher level programming languages like C and whatnot.
Outside of computer science/linguistics he is trash. Zizek on the other hand is a researched on German philosophy and probably the #1 Hegel fanboy like... ever.

>dismissing Chomsky
You guys are trully the pinacle of imbecility, I've heard many far-right/uninformed arguments from my own compatriots against him coming from their own ignorance, but some of the so called 'left's arguments are a monument to human imbecility the likes not even the Zealots of Massada could rival

>>3966017
>lacks the field specific training.
Yeah right, in those fields you totally need "specific training".

cultist.

>>3966025
>Also, isn't he a "linguist" who only knows two languages?

Actually I've asked experts in the area and they're very happy with the quality of his work where he does have specialist training.

>>3966061
>Yeah right, in those fields you totally need "specific training".
Cretin. Read EH Carr on History and Thompson on the Poverty of Theory and get back to me about field specific training in the discursive social sciences. You couldn't read your way out of a paper bag. (Pro-tip: its enclosure of you is indicative of a social discourse of placing cretins in paper bags for the protection of themselves and society; the bag inflicts a normative category of conduct upon you as part of the post-19th century episteme that medicalises difference..)

>>3966052
I like to slap a person over the face with some good ol' piece of ad hominem too, but its no weapon in a conversation with people who have mastered walking and talking.

Chomsky would never have his political views considered as much, had his linguistic findings not been to groundbreaking. In other words, his work bought him the power of his word. His word, on the other hand, wan't able to make itself heard on its own.

I've heard these names ad infinitum from friends, peers, and mentioned in my studies, but don't know much about either.

(i'm also a Film Studies student, so Zizek appears far more than Chomsky)

I'd like to join in the discussion, but don't know where to start. What are some key works to introduce me to these two men?

>>3966121
Zizek's (2006) The Pervert's Guide to Cinema [film]
There's a good book by Boucher and Sharpe _Zizek and Politics_.

I recommend you avoid Chomsky's political writings; they're juvenile. Read his linguistics.

If you want to read high quality anarcho-syndicalist writings, start with Rühle _From the Bourgeois to the Proletarian Revolution_, 1924; then read Dubofsky's _We shall be all_; then read Lomax on 1956 in Hungary.

>>3966017
> Chomsky lacks the field specific training to have a meaningful opinion as a sociologist, anthropologist, historian or broadly as a social scientist. Yet he keeps pounding out shit despite lacking field specialisation adequate to form a sustainable opinion.

And yet I'm supposed to just take your gracious word for it? If you want to be taken seriously just post detailed events of when he was wrong. Saying that he is wrong because "he is not prepared to be right" is incredibly silly. If you actually read one of his books you would know how he gathers information.
Anyone can do the "the king has no clothes" routine. It is rather boring right now, specially in this board.

>I take it that you've read no Italian workerism or autonomism at all,

It is kind of your duty to say the name of such books, since you assume that the anon (and others, such as myself) hasn't read it.
It helps the cause.

>>3966169
>I recommend you avoid Chomsky's political writings; they're juvenile. Read his linguistics.
lol worst advice itt

>>3966182
>If you actually read one of his books you would know how he gathers information.
>Anyone can do the "the king has no clothes" routine. It is rather boring right now, specially in this board.
_At war with asia_
_At war with asia_
_At war with asia_

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to provide you cunts with a citation before you prove capable of basic literacy.

>>3966086
Why do you say something like
>The uncovering of the terms and modes of resistance and liberation fit to a period occur by the class itself in struggle. By our hand alone or by none.
>By our hand alone or by none
>our hand
>our

And act as a "superior" little bitch to others?
Shouldn't you be sucking some company dick? Or out with your leninist friends talking about how you are going to save the "stupid herd"?

>>3966182
On workerism:
Lenin in England
Reading Capital Politically
Power of Women and Subversion of the Community
Storming Heaven
Cybermarx

>>3966191
And what exactly should I be looking for when reading this book that would support your arguments that he is a fraud?
Wouldn't it be easier if you spelled them out so I wouldn't waste my time reading the works of this untrained mind?

>>3966194
Really comrade, because nothing I've said means that I have to listen to you when you're gobbling shit in the union meeting. It won't come from Lenin. Or from a parliamentary party. Or disconnected from the actual factory centred opposition to capital.

I'm busy fighting a 20% layoff at work, alongside the rest of my workplace: what the fuck are you going.

>>3966196
Merci

>>3966212
It claims to be a work of discursive analysis of texts. You'd read the footnotes (as mentioned up thread) with an awareness of the appropriate and valid methodologies for reading claims from broad sets of texts (ie: historiography). Also for the citation of appropriate literature. IIRC (and it has been a while), Chomsky doesn't cite Burchett.

In one line: You would use appropriate methodologies to read Chomsky's text to see if it uses appropriate methodologies.

>>3966088
>I like to slap a person over the face with some good ol' piece of ad hominem too
I know, its a bad habit I share in common with my more unsavoury 'far' cousins in the left

In my career I've seen tons of people badmouth him over his political positions, but praise him for his work

Its just awful that now on the other hand I see people deriding him for his work, as I start to see some wisdom in his political positions

We assign way too much to personality and little to actual discussion of thought, at least this 'fight' between Zizek and Chomsky results in some sort of clash from which some productive ideas may be taken and as an inspiration to a whole new generation of thinkers who can see beyond the preconceptions and frustrations of those that came before

I'll be damned, I didn't know of Zizek, and definitely didn't know as much about Chomsky aside from his computer science related ideas until recently

>>3966214
>fighting a 20% layoff at work
You do know you are all marked for life now, right?
If am right, you'll wish they had just shot you, and trust me, you don't want to get shot either way, but you should stop helping them ruin your life and that of your comrades, you are not helping their cause, you are damning yourself and may be damning others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lpUTmvQLb8

This is great.

I wonder how Zizek would react if a brutal Leninist style Communist Revolution occurred, in his name.

>>3966229
Yet you fail again to give an specific example. And it is fucking amazing that you cite E.H. Carr's History. A work so simple minded ('a historical work depends on the facts chosen', ah thanks didn't knew that) to anyone who ever had even only a remote training in science.

>>3966017
>I take it that you've read no Italian workerism or autonomism at all, if you believe Zizek to be correct. The uncovering of the terms and modes of resistance and liberation fit to a period occur by the class itself in struggle. By our hand alone or by none.

I am not refering to the class resisting and becoming liberated. They can do that. What I'm refering to is coming up with a comprehesive and functioning model of an economic system so they can stay liberated.

Even in Anarchist Spain, where anarcho-syndacilism flourished for a brief time. They themselves admited that they still needed to fix all the nooks and crannys of the system (after the war however). They can experiment with different things and come up with different ideas, but it is not simply a autonomous class who can make this work, but a whole bunch of different people in different classes with experience in different fields.

You cannot simply really on one class to do this. You need a collaboration of a few classes, a knowledge of historical/empirical trends, hypothetical models to test and direct action.

>>3965914
>Stop the chase for equality of outcome.
Yes. This is a hassle.

>>3967018
>a remote training in science.
Bullshit mate, you wouldn't know a hermeneutic if it put a conductive metal over your arc gap.

>>3967379
…
No, mate, no. The bourgeois do nothing to manage the current system and there are plenty of working class economists currently. Reread Marx on what the determinate characteristics of the proletariat are. They're in Volume 1.